Judgment 1. This petn. in revn. has been filed by the pltf. against an order of the learned Munsif of Purulia dated 29-5-1950 in Title Suit No. 47 of 1950. 2. The facts leading to this appln. may be briefly stated as follows : 3. The pltf. instituted the suit in question for a permanent injunction against the principal defts. who are the opposite party here restraining them from causing obstruction to a certain latrine by making constructions so as to prevent the methar from servicing the latrine in question & also for removal of the construction. The pltf.s case is that he purchased a house belonging to one Hamidunnisa on 10-8 1948. He has been making certain construction and has also constructed a latrine by the side of the privy in the house of Hamidunnisa. He alleges that the defts. have their residential house contiguous east of the pltf.s land & building, that the latrine in the pltf.s house used to be serviced through a galli from a very long time & that the defts. commenced constructing a gate & a door over the said galli near the trap-door of the pltf s latrine & thereby the pltf. apprehended that the defts. by such a construction would stop the servicing of the pltf s latrine through the galli. He, therefore, instituted the suit with the prayers aforesaid. The day when the suit was instituted, that is, on 4-2-1950 the pltf. also filed an appln. for ad interim injunction restraining the defts. from constructing the building so as to block the passage in question & the learned Munsif, before whom the suit was filed, granted an ad interim injunction & issued notice upon the defts. opposite party to show cause against this order. Eventually after hearing the parties the learned Munsif on 1-3-1950, dissolved the injunction. Against this order the petnr. preferred an appeal to the learned Dist. J. of Manbhum-Singbhum on 7-3-1950. He could not prefer the appeal earlier because the Holi holidays intervened & the learned Dist. J., after hearing the parties, on 11-5-1950, allowed the appeal. The learned Dist. J, in doing so ordered that the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Munsif should be made absolute till the disposal of the suit. I should have stated that on the day the appeal was filed the appellate Gt. J., after hearing the parties, on 11-5-1950, allowed the appeal. The learned Dist. J, in doing so ordered that the ad interim order of injunction passed by the learned Munsif should be made absolute till the disposal of the suit. I should have stated that on the day the appeal was filed the appellate Gt. also had granted an ad interim injunction order. In the meantime it appears the defts opposite party taking advantage of the order of the learned Munsif vacating the order of ad interim injunction on 1-3-1950 & the delay, which was very natural, in filing the appeal on 7 3 1950, hastened on with the construction. The petnr. moved the learned Munsif for directing the opposite party to remove the construction which had been made during this period, that is, between the date of the vacating of the ad interim order by the learned Munsif on 1-3-1950 & the date of filing of the appeal & the ad interim injunction order by the appellate Ct. on 7-3-1950. The learned Munsif by his order dated 29-5-1950 refused to interfere & hence the present appln. The Munsif observed in his order that the construction by ihe defts during the period was legally authorised because there was nothing to prevent the deft.- petnrs. from doing so. 4. It is contended by Mr. B. C. De on behalf of the petnr. that by virtue of the appellate order of the learned Dist J. he was relegated to ihe same position as he occupiedwhen the ad interim order was passed by the learned Munsif on 1-3-1950, & any construction made with indecent haste by the defts. opposite party during the period in question should have been ordered to be demolished because the conduct of the opposite party really amounted to over-reaching the Ct. knowing as they did not (that?) an appeal against the order of the learned Munsif would be filed by the petnr. without any unreasonable delay. In support of his contention he relies upon several English & Indian authorities. He refer3 to a decision in Daniel V/s. Ferguson, (1891) 2 ch. D. 27 : (39 w. R. 599). In that case the deft. without any unreasonable delay. In support of his contention he relies upon several English & Indian authorities. He refer3 to a decision in Daniel V/s. Ferguson, (1891) 2 ch. D. 27 : (39 w. R. 599). In that case the deft. in an action to restrain from building so as to darken the pltf.s lights, upon receiving notice of motion for injunction put on a number of extra men & by working night & day ran up his wall to a height of nearly 40 feet before receiving notice that an ex parte interim injunction had been granted. It was held that the deft, had endeavoured to anticipate the action of the Ct by hurrying on his building & that what he had erected ought, therefore, to be at once pulled down, without regard to the ultimate result of the action. In the present case, which stands on a stronger footing, ad interim order of injunction had already been passed by the learned Munsif but later he had vacated the order though immediately an appeal was preferred & a fresh ad interim order obtained by the petnr. & finally the learned Dist. J. in allowing his appeal restored & made absolute the ad interim order passed by the learned Munsif. The other case to which reference has been made is a decision in Von Joel v. Hornsey, (1895) 2 Ch. D. 774 : (65 L. J. ch. 102). In that case the deft was erecting a building near the pltf.s house. The pltf. warned the deft that if he proceeded in building the house he would sue to restrain him on account of obstruction to pltf.s lights. The pltf. ultimately filed a suit but the deft. evaded service of writ for several days & in the mean time continued the building till substituted service had to be effected on him. It was held, following the decision in Daniels case, (1891- 2 ch. D 27 : 39 W R. 599), that the pltf. was entitled to an interlocutory mandatory injunction directing the deft. to pull down so much of the building as had been erected after the pltf. had warned the deft. that he intended to bring an action. The cases referred to above have been followed in the various H. Cts. in India, viz , Israil v. Shamser Rahman, 41 cal. 436 : (A.I.R. (1) 1914 Cal. to pull down so much of the building as had been erected after the pltf. had warned the deft. that he intended to bring an action. The cases referred to above have been followed in the various H. Cts. in India, viz , Israil v. Shamser Rahman, 41 cal. 436 : (A.I.R. (1) 1914 Cal. 362), Kaniaswami Chetty V/s. Subramania Chetty, 41 Mad 208 : (A. I. R (5) 1918 Mad. 588) & Gopayya V/s. Ankayya, A. I. R. (14) 1927 Mad. 210 : (99 I. 0. 566). The decision in Israil V/s. Shamser Bahman, 41 cal. 436 : (A. I. R (1) 1914 Gal. 362) is by Mukherji & Beachcroft JJ. & although the facts in that caae were different, their Lordships after a review of various authorities, observed as follows : "In the case before us, therefore, prima facie, the defts should not be allowed to proceed to complete the building which they have erected. But the case for the pltfs. is materially strengthened when we bear in mind the conduct of the defts. The Ct. of first instance found that there was good reason to hold that a substantial portion of the building had been erected after the defts. had become aware of the institution of this suit & of the appln. for temporary injunction. In oase of this description, the Ct. would, if necessary, proceed not only to grant a temporary injunction restraining the further erection of the building but also to direct that the building already erected be taken down." 5. Here it is not disputed that after the ad interim order had been vacated by the learned Munsif & the appeal came to be filed by the petnr. against that order the deft. opposite party continued the progress of the construction regardless of these circumstances & their conduct quite clearly shows that they were trying to defeat any appeal which may eventually be filed by the petnr. & any order which may happen to be passed in his favour. In these circumstances the learned Munsif completely misdirected himself in" assuming that there was nothing wrong on the part of the defts. in proceeding with the construction and the order which has been passed by him is, therefore, materially illegal & irregular & has the effect of nullifying the order which was passed by the learned Dist. In these circumstances the learned Munsif completely misdirected himself in" assuming that there was nothing wrong on the part of the defts. in proceeding with the construction and the order which has been passed by him is, therefore, materially illegal & irregular & has the effect of nullifying the order which was passed by the learned Dist. J. on appeal vacating the previous order of the Munsif. 6. At one stage I was inclined to think that in spite of the irregularity of the order I should refuse to interfere. I was impressed with the argument on behalf of the opposite party that the pltf.s house was not in occupation & that the privy in question for the obstruction of which this injunction was claimed was not in use by the pltf. In fact it was on this basis that the learned Munsif passed his order dated 1-3-1950. The appellate Ct. in setting aside the order did not speci[fically deal with the position. I find, however, from a subsequent order passed by the same learned Munsif that he practically assumes that even though the pltf.-petnr. is in occupation of the house & has been using the latrine, his suffering caused by the obstruction of the passage is self- invited. In view of this I am prepared to assume the correctness of the contention of Mr. De that probably the house & the latrine are being used by the pltf. For these reasons I think that the decision of the learned Munsif must be set aside & the appln. be allowed with costs to the petnr.; hearingfee two gold muhars. I direct that that part of the construction which was made by the deft.- petnrs. within the two dates, that is, 1-3 1950 & 7-3 1950, should be demolished.