Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This petition is instituted against Judgment dated 30.4.2015 rendered by learned District Judge, Shimla in CMA No. 5-S/14 of 2015. 2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs' for convenience sake) have instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake) from removing the water tanks kept on the roof of the building known as Rainbow Building, to obstruct the common path leading towards the roof of the building where the water tanks are installed and restraining the defendant from interfering in the enjoyment of all easementary rights provided to them in sale deed and seeking mandatory injunction also. Plaintiffs have also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Defendant was threatening the plaintiffs that he would remove water tanks. Suit was contested by the defendant. According to him, plaintiffs were given right to use common facilities, path, drainage, stairs, sewerage, water, fittings and fixtures as existed at the time of purchase of flats. However, it was disputed that the water tanks were provided for the plaintiffs on the roof of the building in Rainbow building. Right of easement as pleaded by the plaintiff was also disputed. It was further pleaded by the defendant that at the time of purchase of flat, it was agreed upon by them that plaintiffs will get water and electricity connection as soon as possible. Defendant would give no objection certificate for the installation of water and electricity connection for their respective flats. 3. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) ordered status quo on 20.11.2014. Defendant preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla. He dismissed the same on 30.4.2015. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma, Advocate has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not considered the well known principles governing Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him, learned Courts below have mis-construed clause 11 of the sale deed. Plaintiffs apprehended that the defendant was trying to remove water tanks installed/ kept on top/roof of the building forcibly and illegally and to obstruct the stairs leading towards the top/roof of the building where water tanks are installed. According to him, learned Courts below have mis-construed clause 11 of the sale deed. Plaintiffs apprehended that the defendant was trying to remove water tanks installed/ kept on top/roof of the building forcibly and illegally and to obstruct the stairs leading towards the top/roof of the building where water tanks are installed. According to Clause 11 of the sale deed, purchaser has a right to use water and electricity from the existing connection and the seller was liable to provide the relevant documents for obtaining water and electricity connection. Defendant himself agreed to provide water and electricity from the existing water connection. Prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and injury if they are deprived of basic amenities of life i.e. water and electricity. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. There is no perversity or illegality in judgment dated 30.4.2015. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. No costs.