ORDER J.P. Bajpai, J. l. By this revision, the applicant plaintiff seeks interference with the order made by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court rejecting his application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the construction of latrine and raising the common wall to the height required for construction of the flush latrine in the upper floor of his house. 2. After hearing the learned counsel from both the sides and on going through the material on record and the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the non-applicant, defendant no case is made out for interference. It was not disputed that the wall in question was a common wall, to the use of which both the parties were entitled. The defendant non applicant is proceeding with the construction of a flush latrine in the upper of poor of his house. For that purpose, he is required to penetrate angle iron bars in the joining wall. Since the said wall is not of sufficient hight so as to support the construction of the upper floor, the defendant had raised the height of the same and had put holes to the extent of half of the depth of the wall for penetrating the angle iron bars Similarly, he has raised the height of the wall also by raising only half of the width of the same. The Courts below were of the opinion that since undisputedly the wall in question was a common wall, the defendant was entitled to use the same and penetrate iron angle bars and there was nothing in law to prohibit him proceeding from with the construction of his own house by taking support of the common wall and to raise the same for satisfying his need so long as the said wall is not endangered or damaged in any manner. 3. The main objection raised on behalf of the applicant was that since the wall in question is a common one, the defendant alone had no right to raise half the width of the said wall so as to alter its character as a common wall. 3. The main objection raised on behalf of the applicant was that since the wall in question is a common one, the defendant alone had no right to raise half the width of the said wall so as to alter its character as a common wall. In support of this contention, it was pointed out that half of the width of the wall alone has been raised and angle iron bars have been penetrated into the same. In the opinion of this Court, whenever there is a common wan belonging to the parties as co-owners, it has to be seen that the entire wall retains its character as a common wall and should always be kept in such a condition that it may continue to remain joint and accordingly may be available for enjoyment by both the parties. Thus it is apparent that neither party can do any act which may not only damage or endanger the common wall but alter or change its shape in such a way that it may cease to be used as a common wall. In the present case, the defect which has crept in, is that the defendant has raised only the half of portion of the common wall and the raised structure, therefore, amounts to change in the shape of the common wall. As a matter of fact, the defendant unilaterally has done such an act which may amount to partition and separate enjoyment of half of the said wall. It was not so permissible. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant, however, made a statement that the defendant will raise the entire width of the common wall so as to retain its character of a joint wall and by raising this structure of the common wall the defendant will not claim any right of separate or exclusive ownership on any part of the common wall. The only right which will be available to him will be as a co owner in respect of the common wall i.e. the right to penetrate iron bars etc. for support and enjoyment of the structure on his side of the house. 5. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the non applicant the order impugned deserves to be modified by directing the non-applicant to carry out the construction in the manner stated above. for support and enjoyment of the structure on his side of the house. 5. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the non applicant the order impugned deserves to be modified by directing the non-applicant to carry out the construction in the manner stated above. It is clarified that the raised structure of the entire common wall will continue to retain its character of a joint wall and the defendant will not be able to claim separate exclusive right on any portion of the same on the ground that he had raised the entire structure over and above the previously existing height of the said wall. Both the parties, their successors and assignees will, therefore, be entitled to me the same as a common wall. The defendant non-applicant shall do the needful within two months from the date of this order failing which, the applicant will be free to approach the trial Court for suitable necessary directions. 6. This revision is, therefore, partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Parties will bear their own costs of this revision.