R.S.A. No. 3318 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3318 of 2007 Date of decision: September 22, 2008 Balwant Rai Jain ..Appellant v. Sunder Lal Dhobi and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below whereby the suit filed by him for permanent injunction restraining the respondents- defendants from raising construction and also for mandatory injunction directing them to remove the wall already raised was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that both the parties to the litigation are neighbour. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant with the allegation that the defendants-respondents were trying to raise wall on the property which is owned by him. A three feet wide projection has also been extended and kitchen has been constructed thereon. The suit was contested raising the plea of limitation, estoppel and on merits as well. A counter claim was also filed taking the plea that in fact the plaintiff-appellant had encroached upon the shamlat chowk by raising construction of a latrine without permission of the Municipal Council. On merits, it was claimed that their house was in existence for more than 80 years which was constructed after getting the site plan approved and the plaintiff-appellant was not going to suffer any loss if their house was being repaired or some construction was raised. The allegation regarding raising of illegal construction or encroaching upon the shamlat chowk was denied. After considering the material, counter claim filed by the defendants-respondents was dismissed as the same was found to be time R.S.A. No. 3318 of 2007 [2] barred. It had come on record that the latrine, allegedly constructed by the appellant was, in fact, existing since 1990. As far as the claim made by the plaintiff-appellant is concerned, it was found that the defendants- respondents were raising construction in their own property and regarding opening of windows and doors towards common chowk, no objection can possibly be raised. Merely because the constructed portion of one's own house comes near the window or door of the other person's house, the same cannot be held to be a good reason for restraining the other person from free enjoyment of his property. It could not be proved that the construction had been raised by the defendants-respondents in the property of the plaintiff- appellant or even the common chowk. Though certain oral evidence was sought to be led stating that the construction was going to obstruct free flow or air and light to the house of the plaintiff-appellant, but no such averment had been made in the plaint. Keeping all the facts in view, both the courts below did not find any merit in the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant and resultantly the same was dismissed. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant had not been able to point out any material on record which could lead to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the courts below are, in any way, perverse. He could not refer to any evidence which could enable this Court to take a view that the defendants-respondents were raising construction in the property of the plaintiff-appellant or encroaching upon the shamlat chowk of the municipal council. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 22.9.2008 mk