VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the courts below declining the application moved by the petition under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. Learned courts below on appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that the site plan relied upon by the petitioner does not relate to the property in dispute. It has also been formed by the learned courts below that on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner that the petitioner has encroached upon the public street. The attempt of the petitioner has raised illegal construction was stopped by the Municipal Council. However, by taking advantage of holiday, he raised construction on the property. Accordingly, the injunction had been declined.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no encroachment on the public street rather the construction has been raised as per the sanction plan accorded by the Municipal Council passed in 1993. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if there is any incroachment, he is willing to remove the same. I have considered this argument and find that the learned trial court has prima facie come to the conclusion that the petitioner has raised construction of the public street and, therefore, he was not entitled to the discretionary remedy of injunction. No ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;