R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) MR . Rinesh Gupta for the petitioners.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the orders dated 27.01.2009 and 07.04.2010, the petitioners have approached this Court. By the former order passed by the Civil Judge (JD) Jhunjhunu, the learned Civil Judge had dismissed the T.I. Application filed by the petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. By the latter order, passed by the Additional District Judge (FT) No. 1, Jhunjhunu, the learned Judge had upheld the order dated 27.01.2009 and had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant -respondent Nos. 3 & 4 before the learned Civil Judge (JD) Jhunjhunu. The petitioners had also moved an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that the respondents have enmity and malice with the petitioners. Therefore, with the ulterior motive the defendants are raising illegal constructions. They have constructed two big windows towards the house of the petitioners. The said construction has been made without any legal right or authority, and just to disturb the privacy of the petitioners. After service of notice, the defendants filed reply to the T.I. application. Vide order dated 27.01.2009, after hearing the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the T.I. application. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.01.2009, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge (FT) No. 1, Jhunjhunu. However, vide order dated 07.04.2010 the learned Judge dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that both the Courts below have failed to consider the fact that the open space in front of the house of the petitioners was used by the ladies of the petitioners' family. Therefore, the opening of the windows by the defendant is in violation of their sense of privacy. Moreover, both the Courts below have relied upon the Commissioner's report and given a finding that the open space between the house of the petitioners and the respondents happens to be a public way. However, such a finding has been given without recording any evidence. Therefore, such a finding would certainly come in the way of the petitioners, during the course of trial. Thirdly, the Courts below did not assign any cogent reason for dismissing the T.I. application.;