C.R. No.5445 of 2005 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5445 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.08.2009 Sohan Singh .....Petitioner Versus Mohinder Pal etc. ....Respondents Present: Mr. S.S. Chandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is plaintiff, whose suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from opening any door, window, aperture, ventilator etc. towards the land of the plaintiff comprised in khasra No.2/12/2(4-14) situate in the area of village Mallian Khurd, Tehsil Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar was dismissed as infructuous. The order came to be passed when the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 made a statement in Court that they would not open door, window or ventilator towards the property in dispute except by leaving some space in their own land. The 3rd respondent was already reported to have admitted the claim of the petitioner by stating that he has no C.R. No.5445 of 2005 (O&M) -2- concern with the property in dispute nor would he open door, window, ventilator etc. The dismissal of the suit as having become infructuous, if the plaintiff had been aggrieved, he ought to have preferred an appeal against the same for, a decree of dismissal is still appealable under the provisions of Section 96 of CPC. The revision has been directly before this Court as though the judgment was not capable of being appealed. 2. Under the normal circumstances, I would have felt inclined to dismiss the revision and accord permission to the plaintiff to prefer an appeal against the decree of dismissal. However, since there is literally no contest and the defendants had also stated that they were not going to put up any construction or provide for any access into the plaintiff's property, I propose to dispose of the civl revision. 3. There cannot be any injunction to restrain a defendant from putting up any construction in his own property except when the activity in his own property may constitute nuisance that may impair the plaintiff's right of enjoyment. Any doorway, window, ventilator etc. in the property of the defendant cannot be a point of dispute by the plaintiff. It is not very clear from the plaint as to what he is apprehensive of and more so, when the defendants had affirmed that they had no plans or concern with the plaintiff's property. The relief of injunction shall, therefore, be that the defendant shall not put up any construction in the plaintiff's property or cast any aerial infringement into the plaintiff's property by any windows or ventilators over the plaintiff's property. The defendants' right to put up construction in his own property shall not, in any way, be fettered. C.R. No.5445 of 2005 (O&M) -3- The dismissal of the suit by the trial Court and at the same time observing that the parties shall be bound by their statements were erroneous. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the relief of injunction as referred to above. 4. The civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 12, 2009 Pankaj*