(1.) HEARD Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the defendants -appellants challenging the order dated 21.7.2004 by which the learned 6th Subordinate Judge, Patna, allowed the petition of the plaintiff -respondent for mandatory injunction directing the defendants -appellants to take steps for renewal of sanctioned plan for the construction before the PR.D.A within fifteen days and also directing the plaintiff -respondent to immediately restart the construction work after renewal of the sanctioned plan and complete the construction work within the period granted.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendants -appellants challenges the impugned order on the ground that as per the power of attorney dated 28.5.2001 (annexure -3), the defendants -appellants has specifically authorised the developer, namely the plaintiff -respondent, to do all works in connection with the development and hence there was no occasion for the defendants -appellants to take any steps for renewal or extension of the sanctioned plan before the RR.D.A. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the defendants -appellants is that the Trial Court should not have granted the impugned mandatory injunction as it amounted to decreeing the suit specially when the earlier injunction petition dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure -A) for restraining the defendants from interfering and creating trouble in the construction of the building was rejected by the learned court below on 15.4.2004 (annexure -4).