VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
(2.) The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two Courts below in a suit for mandatory injunction. It was claimed by him that he was using the passage in question for ingress/ outgress of his house from times immemorial and a big junction box had been installed by the defendant which had resulted in obstruction in the aforesaid passage. He claimed that the defendants should remove the aforesaid junction box.
(3.) The defendant remained ex-parte and did not file any written statement. However, both the Courts below on the evidence produced by the plaintiff himself have held that mere installation of the junction box which was only 6 ft x 2ft, no such obstruction was caused as would create a problem for the plaintiff. It was also noticed that junction box in question was for general good of the public, and therefore, the plaintiff could not be heard to make any grievance. Sh.R.S.Athwal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very vehemently argued that the judgments of the Courts below are totally wrong and unsustainable inasmuch as the defendant had not even appeared and filed the written statement to contest the claim of the plaintiff. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the junction box in question was really obstructed the passage in question.;