Construction may proceed subject to an undertaking to demolish without claiming equities if plaintiffs succeed.

The petitioners, defendants in the suit, challenged the trial court’s interim injunction restraining them from installing windows on the eastern side of their property facing the plaintiffs’ property. The injunction had been affirmed by the First Appellate Court

The petitioners’ panchayat permission authorised construction of the ground and first floors, but the photographs showed a second floor had also been constructed; their request for permission to add a floor had been rejected, and they had sought sanction or regularisation

They submitted that the proposed window would be on the second floor and offered to undertake that they would claim no equity and would demolish as directed if the plaintiffs succeeded

1. Whether the interim injunction restraining the petitioners from fixing a window on the eastern side should be maintained or modified in light of the petitioners’ undertaking and the limited relief sought in the suit

2. Whether the petitioners could be permitted to proceed with construction, including the second floor, subject to the outcome of the suit and the required undertaking

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging orders made in proceedings concerning an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure

The Court relied on no cited precedent or expressly stated general test for interim injunctions.

Its order adopted a case-specific arrangement: the petitioners could proceed subject to an undertaking not to claim equity and to demolish as required if the plaintiffs succeeded; if the authorities did not grant the requested sanction, regularisation, or modification, the undertaking was also to cover demolition of the second floor

The Court noted that the plaintiffs’ pleaded grievance and prayer concerned the fixing of a window facing their property, while the petitioners said the proposed window would be on the second floor

It also took account of the discrepancy between the panchayat permission, which covered only two floors, and the three floors shown in the photographs

Rather than finally determine the parties’ rights or the legality of the construction, the Court accepted a conditional undertaking addressing the risk that the plaintiffs might succeed and requiring demolition if the authorities refused the requested approval

It directed that the trial court decide the suit on its merits, uninfluenced by this interim arrangement

The petitioners were permitted to proceed with construction, subject to filing the specified affidavit within two days, undertaking not to seek equity and to demolish if the plaintiffs succeeded; if the authorities did not grant the requested approval, they were also to undertake to demolish the second floor

The trial court was to decide the suit independently on its merits