IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5250 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.09.2009 Har Kishan and others .....Petitioners versus Jitender Kumar and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ram Avtar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate, for the respondent-caveator. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the defendants against the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat, whereby on acceptance of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC moved by the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners have been restrained from interfering into the demolition of the house by the respondent-plaintiff, as well as the order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, upholding the aforementioned order. C.R. No.5250 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The petitioner-defendants and the respondent-plaintiff are neighbourers. One of the petitioner's house is on the left side and two of them have their houses on the right side of the respondents' house, each constructed on a plot measuring 300 square yards. There is a dispute with regard to the walls AB and CD which the petitioner-defendants claim to be joint while the respondent-plaintiff claims his exclusive ownership. The grievance of the petitioner-defendants is that if the alleged joint walls AB & CD are demolished, it will cause extensive damage to their respective houses. On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff urges that the house in question was constructed by his father in the year 1956-57 and a notice has been received by him from the Municipal Council, Sonepat that the house is in dilapidated condition and if he does not demolish it, the Municipal Council shall take penal action against him. The Courts below have observed that the respondent-plaintiff has made a prima-facie case and balance of convenience also lies in his favour and in case he is not permitted to demolish or reconstruct the house, it will cause irreparable loss to him. Aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court. The respondent-plaintiff is also on Caveat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order. It is well settled that in ad-interim injunction matter, the scope of interference by the Revisional Court is very limited, especially when C.R. No.5250 of 2009 (O&M) 3 both the Courts have concurrently observed that the respondent-plaintiff has made out a prima-facie case and other relevant factors also weigh in his favour. In these circumstances, no case for interference in the restraint order passed by the Courts below, is made out. However, the counsel for the petitioner-defendants appears to be right in contending that while demolishing the house in a lawful manner, the respondent-plaintiff should not cause any damage to their houses and in case of any such damage, they will be at liberty to seek compensation under the common law. The aforesaid legal proposition is not disputed by counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is disposed of with the observation that the respondent-plaintiff may demolish the walls AB & CD by ensuring that no deliberate damage is caused to the houses of the petitioners. Disposed of. Dasti. 24-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE