MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Bikaner dated September 19, 1987 by which he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsif, Bikaner dated January 20, 1986, directing the defendant-non-petitioners to maintain status quo in respect of the construction of the building of Mataji's Temple, Sunaron ki Mandi, Bikaner. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Bikaner for injunction against the defendant-non-petitioners with the allegations, in short, that Mataji's Temple exists close to her house, the defendants are its trustees, they have demolished the old building of the temple and have raised two storeyed building in its place without the permission of the Municipal Board, Bikaner and of the Collector, Bikaner under Section 6, Rajasthan Religious Buildings & Places Act, 1954 and have opened several ventilators and windows towards her house. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. was moved, praying that the defendants be restrained from raising further constructions and opening the ventilators* and windows. THE defendants filed their reply, seriously opposing the application and stating that alterations have simply been effected in the ground floor of the building of the temple, a room has been constructed in the upper storey, no new temple has been constructed, suit is not maintainable without impleading the idle of Shri Mataji, there exists a lane in between the building of the temple and the plaintiff's house and ventilators & windows open towards the lane, After hearing the part;ies, the learned Munsiff directed the defendants to maintain the status quo in respect of the construction by his order dated January 20,1986. On the application of the defendants, the learned Munsif permitted them to complete the flouring work of the ground floor by his order dated January 25, 1986. Aggrieved by the order dt. January 20, 1986, the defendants filed Appeal No. 154/86. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Bikaner allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 20. 1. 86 by his judgment dated September 19, 1987, which has been challenged in this revision petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction while allowing the appeal and his order is a perverse and against the record. He further contended that the learned Additional District Judge did not at all consider that the building of the temple could not be constructed without the permission of the Collector under Sec, 6, Rajasthan Religious Buildings & Places Act and also of the Municipal Board, Bikaner. He lastly contended that the raising of the construction and opening of the windows and ventilators adversely affect the comfort and privacy of the petitioner. He relied upon A. I. R. 1985 Delhi 293, A. I. R. 1983 Sikkim 5, 1959 R. L. W. 273 and 1977 R. L. W. 236. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners duly supported the order under revision. Admittedly, a room on the first storey was already constructed and disputed windows and ventilators were already opened in the building of the temple when the suit was filed. As such A. I. R. 1985 Delhi 293 and A. I. R. 1983 Sikkim 5 do not help the petitioner. In both these reported cases, construction was not commenced. The learned Munsif directed the non-petitioners to maintain the status quo in respect of the construction of the building of the Mataji's Temple, Sunaron ki Mandi, Bikaner by his order dated January 2, 1986. The petitioner wants the restoration of this order. After this order, the defendants moved an application that the renovation work of the temple is almost complete except plastering of the walls and flooring and permission to carry them out was sought. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif permitted the defendants to carry out the flooring work in the ground floor by his order dated 25 1. 86. Admittedly, no appeal was filed against this order by the plaintiff-petitioner. The net result of the two orders of the Munsif, Bikaner and the order of the Additional District Judge, Bikaner is that the defendants were at liberty to carry out the plastering of the walls also. Presently this can be the only surviving grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner. It is not in dispute that a lane exists in between the buildings of the temple and, the plaintiff and this lane is not claimed by the plaintiff. The disputed windows and ventilators have been opened in the building of the temple towards this lane. It has been held in Sayyed Ajuf v. Amir Rubi (1) "that invasion of privacy by opening windows is not a wrong for which an action will lie " It may also be mentioned here that no appeal was filed by the plaintiff when temporary injunction for the closure of the windows and ventilators was not granted by the learned Munsif.
(3.) IT is very much doubtful that the provisions of Sec. 6, Rajasthan Religious Buildings & Places Act, 1954 would apply when a temple is renovated. Under these facts and circumstances, IT cannot be said that the learned AddITional District Judge acted illegally or wITh material irregularITy in the exercise of his jurisdiction while allowing the appeal. Thus there is no force in the revision petITion. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. .;