JUDGMENT : (Delivered on day of March, 2012 ) This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment which was passed by the learned trial Court?” 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case learned trial Court was justified in granting relief to the appellant to move appropriate application for compounding while there was no such prayer in the suit?” 2. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 12/08/2011 passed by District Judge, Dhar in Civil Appeal No.2A of 2010, whereby the judgment dated 18/11/2009 passed by Civil Judge Class-1, Dhar in CS No.59-A/2009, whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed in part, was set aside, present appeal has been filed. 3. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a suit before the trial court for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that appellant is the owner of the house No.20,situated at Bohra Bakhal, Marutipura, Dhar. It was alleged that for widening of road where the house of appellant is situated, the appellant has surrendered 4' of the land of his ownership. It was alleged that after obtaining permission, appellant has constructed the suit property. It was alleged that the respondents are trying to demolish the balcony which was constructed by the appellant. Learned counsel submits that it is true that no sanction was granted for the construction of balcony. Thereafter, appellant has moved appropriate application for modification of permission and sanction of the balcony. In the suit prayer for declaration and permanent injunction was made. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit with a direction that if appropriate application is file by the appellant before respondents No. 1 and 2 for compounding the illegal construction raised by the appellant then the same shall be considered by respondents No. 1 and 2 in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, appeal was filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 which was allowed in part and the permission granted to the appellant to move appropriate application for compounding, was set aside against which present appeal has been filed. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, appeal was filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 which was allowed in part and the permission granted to the appellant to move appropriate application for compounding, was set aside against which present appeal has been filed. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the partiesat length and keeping in view the fact that there was no prayer made by the appellant in the suit to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to consider the prayer of compounding, this Court is of the view that trial Court was not justified in giving such direction which has rightly been set aside by the appellate Court, however, since application has already been filed by the appellant before respondent No.1 and 2 which is pending, therefore, it is directed that appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000.00 within four weeks and shall request to consider the application then respondents No. 1 and 2 shall dispose of the application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant as per Section 187-A of the Municipalities Act within 8 weeks. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are also directed to hold the enquiry that how the illegal construction was raised against the permission and the action taken against the defaulting officers within the aforementioned stipulated time.. 5. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.