N. G. Nandi, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal from Order under Order XLIII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants (original defendants) have been challenging the order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure whereby defendants No. 1 and 2 have been restrained pending the hearing and disposal of the suit, from deviating from the sanctioned plan while raising construction, thereby directing defendants 1 to 3 not to make any opening on the rear side of their properties except as permitted to them according to the sanctioned plan and also restraining the demolition of the adjacent wall in the rear of House No. 7-B/1 and 7/b-2, Taimur Nagar, New Delhi and raise the rear wall strictly in conformity with the plan sanctioned by the municipal authorities. ( 2 ) IT may be seen that in the suit for declaration and injunction by the respondents (original plaintiffs), the plaintiffs as well as the defendants prayed for injunction against each other under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants, by ad interim injunction have been restrained pending the suit as pointed out above. In the application filed by the defendants, the plaintiffs are restrained from encroaching upon the public road by raising barricades etc. and also from raising any wall abutting to the adjoining wall of the defendants premises. The plaintiffs (respondents) have not challenged the said order and this appeal is only by the appellants/defendants against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, as above. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the defendants properties bearing No. 7-B/1 and 2 are in Taimur Nagar Society whereas the plaintiffs property bearing No. B- 45 is in Maharani Bagh Co-operative Housing Society and that between these two societies, there is a 80 feet wide road with foot-path on both the sides of the road touching the properties of the plaintiffs and defendants in aforesaid two societies, as pointed out above. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by Mr. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by Mr. R. P. Bansal, learned senior counsel for the appellants that the plan sanctioned in the year 1962 shows the entrance to the defendants property in the boundary wall; that the plan prepared by the local commissioner shows the said back, the external wall of the building and the boundary wall; that for raising the boundary wall or for providing door/entrance therein no permission/ sanction is required as per bye-law 6. 4. 1; that the plaintiffs property is on the Maharani Bagh Road and the plaintiff is not prejudiced at all as no injury/ inconvenience would be caused to the plaintiff; that the defendants have opening only from 80 ft. wide road since 1962 and that the plaintiffs are at a distance of 80 ft. from the defendants house and that the defendants are already having boundary wall. ( 5 ) AS against this, it is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the defendants can not have entrance from the rear side i. e. from the 80 ft. wide public road; that the defendants front side or the entrance is from Taimur Nagar Society; that the defendants want to put their property to commercial use by providing entrance in the rear wall abutting on the 80 ft. wide public road; that the defendants front side or the entrance is from Taimur Nagar Society; that the defendants want to put their property to commercial use by providing entrance in the rear wall abutting on the 80 ft. wide public road; that it would cause nuisance to the plaintiffs; that no open space has been left on the rear side and that the sanction does not allow gate/entrance on the rear side abutting on the public road; that the rear wall of the main building of the plaintiffs is itself the boundary wall of the plaintiffs property; that it is a misnomer to call the rear wall of the building as the same is the boundary wall; that the entry to the defendants property is from the front i. e. Taimur Nagar Society and there is no entrance from the public street; that no irreparable injury would be caused to the defendants and the balance of convenience also required that the defendants be restrained by suitable injunction; that the sanction granted earlier stand superseded byubsequent sanction; that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower court and that the municipal sanction can not be allowed to be violated; that 1962 plan does not show any opening from the rear abutting on the 80 ft. wide road; that the said plan is for the boundary; that the discretion exercised by the lower court does not deserve to be interfered with. ( 6 ) THE building plan sanctioned on 12. 5. 1988 does not suggest any door entrance in the rear wall of the properties bearing No. 7-B/1 and 2 abutting on 80 feet wide road. The sketch prepared by the court commissioner which is to be found at page 165 would suggest the position existing as on the date of the visit of the court commissioner to the suit site. The commissioner was appointed in this appeal vide order dated 23. 5. 1996. It need hardly be said that local commissioner s report would not be helpful in suggesting the position existing as on the date of the suit. As far as the sanction granted in the year 1962 to the defendants is concerned, the same is only for the compound wall/boundary. Commissioner s map suggests the opening on the foot path abutting on the 80 ft. As far as the sanction granted in the year 1962 to the defendants is concerned, the same is only for the compound wall/boundary. Commissioner s map suggests the opening on the foot path abutting on the 80 ft. wide road with off-set given to properties 7-B/1 and 2. It also suggests the entrance from both the sides to the plaintiffs property bearing No. B-45, whereas the defendants properties bearing No. 7-B/1 and 2 are also shown to have entrance abutting on the foot path on the other side i. e Temur Nagar Society. ( 7 ) THE position that emerges from the above and found by the lower court at this stage of the matter, is that the defendants do not have entrance abutting on the foot path touching 80 ft. wide road which divides the plaintiffs society i. e. Maharani Bagh Co-operative Housing Society and the defendants society i. e. Taimur Nagar Housing Society. The sanctioned plan of 1962 is in respect of the boundary/compound wall only. The second plan sanctioned in the year 1988 does not suggest any entrance on the rear side of the defendants property abutting on the foot path of 80 ft. wide dividing road. Even as suggested from the Commissioner s map, the defendants; properties No. 7- B/1 and 2 have entrance from the other side of the property. As far as the provisions contained in Bye- law 6. 4. 1 of the Building Bye-laws of the local authority and Section 333 of the D. M. C. Act are concerned, the sanctioned plan of 1988 and the previous sanctioned plan of 1962, which relate to the compound wall, in my opinion, can not be taken aid of at this stage of the matter. It appears that the defendants attempted to provide entrance from the 80 ft. wide road to their property and no such entrance is shown in the plan of 1988. It need hardly be said that one who comes to the equity must come with clean hands and must also do the equity, especially when the defendants rely on the sanction plan of 1962 and 1988. ( 8 ) I do not regard the exercise of discretion by the lower court to be in any manner perverse. It need hardly be said that one who comes to the equity must come with clean hands and must also do the equity, especially when the defendants rely on the sanction plan of 1962 and 1988. ( 8 ) I do not regard the exercise of discretion by the lower court to be in any manner perverse. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the above for the present limited purpose, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned order and the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal fails. ( 11 ) IT is wished to be clear that none of the above observations shall be construed to mean expression of opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the parties.