JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order dated 7.10.93 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in CMC No. 33/93 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-defendants arising out of the suit and upheld the order passed by the trial court dated 12-2-93. A short question which has arisen for consideration of this Court is regarding the construction on a 'Chandni (outer courtyard) facing the room on the 3rd floor of the suit premises which is admittedly in possession and ownership of the petitioner. The respondents had filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners-defendants restraining them from interfering in the use and occupation of the windows shown in the site plain annexed to the plaint and an application seeking the relief of temporary injunction was also filed. The suit was contested by the parties on the grounds inter alia; that the petitioners had obtained sanction/permission from the Municipal Council, Jaipur on 11.12.90 prior to raising the construction and also prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiff in the trial Court on 11/1/91. These undisputed facts are born out from the pleadings. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the certified copy of the sanctioned plan dated 11.12.89 obtained from the Municipal Council, Jaipur. He has also shown the letter indicating the sanction from the Municipal Authorities which is the conclusive evidence of the prior sanction having been obtained from the Municipal Authorities prior to commencement of the construction over the disputed site. 2. The Trial Court vide its order dated 12.2.93 had directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the disputed passage in question and against this order an appeal was preferred to the learned Addl. District Judge No. 7 Jaipur City, Jaipur which came to be decided vide the impugned order dated 7.10.93 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Appellate Court this revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the relevant documents as well as the impugned order. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Appellate Court this revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the relevant documents as well as the impugned order. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is fully within his rights to raise the construction over the disputed 'Chandni' in question over the 3rd floor of the suit premises because the petitioner had commenced the construction in accordance with law and the rules of the Municipal Council since he had obtained the requisite permission and sanction from the Municipal Council before commencing the said construction. Hence, there is no legal impediment as to why the petitioner should not be permitted to complete that construction. 3. During the course of hearing Shri Shah learned counsel for the respondents has also not disputed this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner after having perused the documents shown by Mr. Pareek. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that his client will have no grievance provided the windows constructed on the 4th storey are not closed. Shri Pareek states that the petitioner will not raise any construction resulting in the closure of the windows during the pendency of the suit. If at all any construction is raised in future it shall be done by obtaining prior permission and sanction of the Municipal Authority. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed in terms of this order. The impugned order dated 7.10.93 is quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs.Revision allowed. *******