THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3506, 3514, 3516 and 3529 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: All the C.R.Ps. are interconnected. Hence, they are being disposed of through common order. The petitioners filed O.S.No.2921 of 2006 in the Court of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction, restraining them from opening windows across the old common wall in ‘A’ schedule property, or from laying any fiber-plastic sheets roof to the pent house in the second floor of the building, sloping towards the house of the petitioners. Mandatory injunction was prayed for requiring the 4th defendant to remove the illegal constructions, made by respondents 1 to 3. The trial of the suit commenced, and it has progressed to certain extent. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.387 of 2010, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint, by incorporating the prayer in the form of a mandatory injunction, against the 4th respondent, to remove all the illegal constructions, made in the suit schedule property. Consequential applications for reopening of evidence, receiving documents and recalling of PW.1 were also filed, being I.A.Nos.384, 386 and 385 of 2010. Through separate orders, dated 12.07.2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.As. Hence, these four revisions. Heard Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioners, on the one hand, and the respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, purchased some property, divided by a common wall, from the same owner. It is stated that, while the petitioners had made new constructions, duly giving set back from the common wall, respondents 1 to 3 have made constructions on the old common wall itself, so much so certain windows were opened and sheets are arranged in such a way that the rain water pours into the area purchased by the petitioners. With this background, they claimed the reliefs as claimed in the plaint initially. On coming to know that there did not exist any construction permission for the pent house in the second floor, the petitioners filed the present set of applications. There existed some uncertainty in the very frame of the suit. The relief of mandatory injunction was, in fact, claimed, that too, against the 4th respondent for removal of certain objectionable structures. The present effort is only to expand the scope of the existing prayer. Apart from the nature of prayer made in the applications and the reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the same, this Court finds that the petitioners ought to have undertaken another exercise for effective adjudication of the disputes, namely, that the relief in the form of declaration ought to have been sought. It is well settled that the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be claimed in isolation, in the absence of any relief in the form of declaration. Even now, the petitioners can undertake such an exercise. Hence, the revisions are disposed of, directing that, it shall be open to the petitioners to file fresh applications, claiming the relief of declaration and consequential mandatory injunction, apart from filing the other applications, which are needed for reopening of evidence etc. As and when such applications are filed, they shall be considered on their own merits, without reference to any observations made in the orders under revisions. To enable the petitioners to undertake such an exercise, the trial Court shall defer the further steps in the suit for a period of four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:25.08.2010 Note: Furnish c.c. in three days. (B/o) GJ