Honble YADAV, J. - The plaintiff revisionist filed a suit against the defendant opposite party in the Court of Munsif, Bikaner for permanent injunction restraining defendant from making construction over the area known as chowki outside his residential house which is adjacent to the plaintiffs house. The permanent injunction was claimed on the ground that the plaintiff has a right of easement of light and air from the area known as chowki which is lying open. It was also claimed on the ground that the Municipal Council, Bikaner ha refused permission for raising construction over the same but despite refusal of permission to raising construction over the disputed land the defendant was illegally making constructions on the open land popularly known as chowki. (2). After service of notice the defendant opposite party filed an objection opposing application moved by the plaintiff revisionist under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 CPC on the ground inter alia that the house of the plaintiff revisionist is not adjacent to his house. The land in dispute popularly known as chowki is not a government land but it belongs to the defendant opposite party which he obtained by patta. Regarding refusal of permission by Municipal Council, Bikaner a evasive reply has been given by the defendant opposite party stating therein that he is seeking relief before the Municipal Council, Bikaner. (3). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bikaner issued temporary injunction restraining the defendant opposite party from raising construction over the open disputed land popularly known as chowki. The learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bikaner issued temporary injunction on 10.4.89. (4). Against grant of temporary injunction under 0.39 r.l and 2 CPC by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bikaner on 10.4.89 the defendant opposite party filed an appeal under 0.43 r. 1 (r) CPC before the learned District Judge, Bikaner which was transferred for disposal according to law to the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner. (5). After hearing both the parties the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner vide his order dated 21.1.93 set aside the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bikaner. Thus the injunction order which was granted by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bikaner was refused by learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner vide his order dated 21.1.1993. (6). After hearing both the parties the learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner vide his order dated 21.1.93 set aside the order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bikaner. Thus the injunction order which was granted by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bikaner was refused by learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner vide his order dated 21.1.1993. (6). Aggrieved against refusal of temporary injunction under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 CPC by learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner the plaintiff revisionist has filed the instant revision before this Court. (7). The present revision was filed on 23.2.93 before this court and a notice was issued to the defendant opposite party to show cause as to why this revision should not be admitted and disposed of. It is important to mention that on the same day following ad-interim stay order was passed : — "Meanwhile, the status-quo as operating on the date of service of this notice will be maintained by the parties." (8). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also critically examined the orders passed by both the learned courts below. (9). It is urged before me by the learned counsel for plaintiff revisionist that the easementary rights of light and air of the plaintiff are affected therefore he is entitled for a temporary injunction which was legally granted by the trial court but the learned lower appellate court arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely and against the sound principle of law interfered with the discretion exercised by trial court which is impermissible and the defendant opposite party has no right to raise construction over the open land (chowki) against the bye laws framed by Municipal Board of Bikaner. According to him plaintiff has proved a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is also in his favour. The plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if defendant opposite party is not restrained from raising construction over the disputed land. (10). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant opposite party has refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of plaintiff revisionist. He supported the order passed by learned lower appellate court refusing temporary injunction. (11). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. (12). (10). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant opposite party has refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of plaintiff revisionist. He supported the order passed by learned lower appellate court refusing temporary injunction. (11). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the bar. (12). In my considered opinion in order to make out a prima facie case necessary for granting temporary injunction the plaintiff revisionist need not to establish his title it was sufficient if he can satisfy that the disputed open land should be preserved in its present condition until the question of his alleged right of light and air is finally disposed off. Such questions can be disposed of only in the suit after its trial. (13). The second consideration which every civil court is required to keep in view is that in such cases where existence of light and air is claimed if the defendant opposite party is allowed to raise construction the very circumstantial evidence of getting light and air will be destroyed and it will not be possible for the plaintiff revisionist to establish that he was getting light and air from the open disputed land. (14). It is a matter of common knowledge that every municipal council has framed its building bye laws and as such in disobedience of such building bye laws framed by Municipal Board a person is not entitled to raise construction. To my mind the object of building bye laws made by the various Municipal Boards in the State of Rajasthan are to keep the environment clean by providing sufficient air and light not only to the owner of the house but also to the persons residing in the locality. If a person is allowed to commit a breach of building bye laws of the Municipal Boards by his acts and omissions it must be deemed that he intends to affect the environment, which should not be permitted. An illegal construction of building against bye laws of a Municipal Board materially affects the right of enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the locality. (15). The question however remains whether a neighbour has a right to file a suit for restraining his neighbour from raising any construction contrary to the Building bye laws. An illegal construction of building against bye laws of a Municipal Board materially affects the right of enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the locality. (15). The question however remains whether a neighbour has a right to file a suit for restraining his neighbour from raising any construction contrary to the Building bye laws. In K. Ramadas Shenoy vs. Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Udipur (1), it was ruled by the Apex Court which reads thus : — "An illegal construction of a cinema building materially affects the right enjoyment of the property by persons residing in the residential area. The Municipal Authorities owe a duty and obligation under the statute to see that the residential area is not spoilt by unauthorised construction. The scheme is for the benefit of the residents of the locality. The Municipality acts in aid of the scheme. The rights of the. residents in the area are invaded by an illegal construction of a cinema building. It has to be remembered that a scheme in a residential area means planned orderliness in accordance with the requirements of the residents. If the scheme is nullified by arbitrary acts in excess and derogation of the powers of the Municipality the Courts will quash orders passed by Municipalities in such cases." (16). The learned counsel for the defendant opposite party Shri B.M. Bhojak urged before me that the order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. vs. The Goods Supervisor Western Railway, Kota & Ors. (2). The aforesaid decision rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as while deciding an application under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 CPC the attention of learned Single Judge was not invited to the mandatory provisions contained under 0.39 r. 7 CPC. It is also apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid judgment that the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of K. Ramadas Shenoy (supra)also escape the notice of the learned Single Judge. (17). Learned counsel for the defendant opposite party also placed reliance on a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of Delhi High" Court in the case of Onkar Nath vs. Rama Nath Gupta & Ors. (3). (17). Learned counsel for the defendant opposite party also placed reliance on a decision rendered by learned Single Judge of Delhi High" Court in the case of Onkar Nath vs. Rama Nath Gupta & Ors. (3). The ratio of the aforesaid case as ruler by the learned Single Judge in para 8 of his judgment is reproduced below for ready reference: — "In Smt. Ang. Lhamu vs. Smt. Ladena, AIR 1983 Sikkim 5, the plaintiff was granted an injunction against his neighbour defendant who was constructing building contrary to bye laws of the Municipality. From these authorities, it appears that the plaintiff has a right to seek the aid of the Court in restraining his neighbour from raising construction contrary to bye laws or from raising unauthorised construction. Raising of unauthorised construction will effect the rights of the plaintiff as under the Building bye laws 1983 leaving set backs is mandatory. Admittedly, there is no sanction plan in favour of the defendants. They have not made any application for obtaining any sanction for raising a building but still their intention from the report of the local commissioner is clear that they intend to raise structures. Such a structure cannot be raised without permission of the authorities concerned. If a structure is raised without permission it would effect the right of the plaintiff. I therefore do not agree with the observation of the Lower Courts that the plaintiff has no prima facie case; that his right is not affected. The plaintiff is the owner of the building, while the defendants are alleged to be the owner of the adjoining plot. If the defendants are allowed to raise unauthorised structure, the right of the plaintiff is likely to be affected." (18). I respectfully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in the case of Onkar Nath (supra) and hold that order passed by learned lower appellate court in the present case is manifestly wrong. (19). In the present case if the defendant opposite party is not restrained from raising of construction over the disputed land it may be difficult later on to get the construction demolished. (19). In the present case if the defendant opposite party is not restrained from raising of construction over the disputed land it may be difficult later on to get the construction demolished. The defendant opposite party has no legal right to raise construction against building bye laws of Municipal Council, Bikaner while the plaintiff revisionist being a neighbour of defendant opposite party has every right to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant opposite party from raising construction against the building bye laws and the plaintiff is entitled to obtain temporary injunction in the present case under 0.39 r. 1 and 2 C.P.C. (20). In the present case a suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff revisionist claiming easementary right of light and air and in my humble opinion if the order impugned dated 21.1.1993 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner is allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of justice and irreparable injury to the plaintiff revisionist. (21). As a result of the aforementioned discussion, the order passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner dated 21.1.1993 is hereby set aside and the instant revision is allowed. The order passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bikaner dated 10.4.1989 is hereby restored.