JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The petitioners are the defendants and the opposite parties are plaintiffs in C.S. No. 64 of 2004 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nayagarh. 2. As per the writ petition, both the parties have their residential houses side by side. Opposite parties did not leave any space to the southern side of their house, whereas the petitioners erected a compound wall leaving a space measuring 6' in width to the northern side of their house. In other words in between southern side of their house and northern side of the house of the petitioners, there is a space of 6' width. 3. Before the trial court, both the petitioners and the opposite parties filed two separate petitions u/s 151 of C.P.C. The prayer of the opposite parties (plaintiffs) therein was to allow them to use the aforesaid vacant space for plastering and white washing of the southern face of the southern wall in the first floor of their house. The prayer of the petitioners (defendants) was to allow them to plaster and repair the damaged portion of the outer compound wall. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned court below allowed both the petitions u/s 151 of C.P.C. and permitted the petitioners (defendants) to repair the damaged portion of the aforesaid wall in presence of a pleader commissioner without creating any problem to the opposite parties (plaintiffs) on condition that they can not raise the height of the wall nor can they claim any right or title over the vacant space, if it is ultimately found that the vacant space does not belong to them and they have no other right over the same. It was further ordered that they shall give an undertaking to that effect whereafter they would be permitted to proceed with the repairing work. Furthermore, it was ordered that before carrying out such work, the petitioners (defendants) shall allow the opposite parties (plaintiffs) to carry out their plastering and white washing by using the vacant space. The said orders were passed on 17.3.2009. 5. Being aggrieved with the said orders, the petitioners (defendants) have preferred the present writ petition. As it appears the dispute between the parties relates to ownership of the vacant space of 6' width in between their houses. The said orders were passed on 17.3.2009. 5. Being aggrieved with the said orders, the petitioners (defendants) have preferred the present writ petition. As it appears the dispute between the parties relates to ownership of the vacant space of 6' width in between their houses. The opposite parties (plaintiffs) can not plaster and white wash the upstair wall of their house which faces to the northern direction without using the vacant space. The petitioners (defendants) also can not repair the compound wall without using that space. So, the orders under challenge, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity to be interfered with by this court in writ jurisdiction. 6. Since the aforesaid Civil Suit is of the year 2004, the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Nayagarh shall dispose of the same expeditiously. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed