C. R. No. 4385 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4385 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 27, 2010 Ramesh Chander .... Petitioner Vs. Piara Lal .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for Mr. D. K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Ramesh Chander has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 04.05.2010 (as corrected vide order dated 05.06.2010) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, thereby dismissing defendant's application for permission to construct roof of the suit property. Respondent Piara Lal has filed suit against the petitioner for permanent injunction and also moved application for temporary injunction alleging that the plaintiff-respondent is owner of the suit property. Plaintiff's elder brother Amar Nath was residing as licensee in a portion of C. R. No. 4385 of 2010 2 the suit property. After death of Amar Nath, his wife and two sons became licensees under the plaintiff. Disputed portion of the suit property was let out by plaintiff's father to defendant's father. After the death of fathers of both the parties, defendant became tenant in the disputed portion under the plaintiff. The defendant threatened to raise construction and to change nature of the suit property without any right to do so. The plaintiff claimed injunction against the same. The defendant inter alia pleaded that area under occupation of the defendant was not allotted to plaintiff's father and is not owned by the plaintiff. The said area is surplus area and the same was occupied by defendant's mother in the year 1960. The defendant also pleaded that he did not want to demolish any construction, but intended to construct roof of the suit property for the shelter of his family. Learned trial court, vide order dated 05.05.2008 (Annexure P-1), restrained the defendant from changing shape/nature of the suit property in any manner and from raising any construction therein till final decision of the suit. After passing of order Annexure P-1, the defendant moved application dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure P-2) for permitting the defendant to raise construction over the suit property. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 04.05.2010. I have heard learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and perused the case file. C. R. No. 4385 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner contended that the petitioner is admittedly in possession of the suit property and therefore, it is essential to construct roof over the suit property for proper utilization thereof and for using it as residence by the petitioner for himself and his family. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. As noticed herein above, when application for temporary injunction moved by plaintiff-respondent was disposed of by the trial court, even then it was the stand of the petitioner that he intended to construct roof of the suit property. However, this plea of the defendant was not allowed and the trial court, vide order dated 05.05.2008 (Annexure P-1), restrained the defendant from changing nature and shape of the suit property in any manner and from raising any construction in the suit property till final decision of the suit. The said temporary injunction order has attained finality and therefore, there was no occasion for the defendant to seek permission to construct roof of the suit property by moving application Annexure P-2 while order Annexure P-1 is in existence. The defendant's plea of raising roof over the suit property was not accepted in order Annexure P-1 and therefore, the application Annexure P-2 moved by the defendant could not be allowed. It has been held in order Annexure P-1 that defendant has no right to raise construction in the suit property. C. R. No. 4385 of 2010 4 For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity, much less illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 27, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE