- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BOTH the courts below have concurrently refused to grant injunction to the plaintiff-appellant on the basis of agreement executed between the parties, by which the right to use the common wall was given to the respondents-defendants over which they were expected to raise construction within two years. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, urged that since the defendants-respondents failed to raise construction within two years as stipulated in the agreement, the life of the said agreement ended; and, therefore, thereafter they could not raise any construction. On the other hand, Mr. Harish Purohit, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-defendants submits that rights vested in the defendants under Clause 3 of the agreement gave them exclusive right to use the wall in question, which was earlier common between the two. He further submits that since the defendants have raised construction on that wall, therefore, the injunction has rightly been refused by the courts below to the plaintiff. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of reasons given in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below, this Court finds that no substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal and, same, therefore, deserves dismissal. Consequently, the present second appeal is dismissed. No costs. ;