JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Judgment dated 16.10.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 45/2015, is under challenge before this Court, in this petition. 2. The complaint is that respondents defendants No. 1 and 2 by adding vacant space adjoining to Plot No. 27 has carved out new Plot No. 27A and auctioned the same, which has been purchased by respondent-defendant No. 3. The said respondent defendant has started raising construction of the house and as a result thereof, the approach which was to the plot of petitioner-plaintiff from both sides is likely to be obstructed. The petitioner-plaintiff, therefore, has filed a suit for the decree of mandatory and permanent prohibitory injunction directing the respondents defendants to restore original position of the link road on northern side of Plot No. 27 with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from changing the nature and character of plot No. 27. 3. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed along with the suit. The trial Court, however, has dismissed the application vide order Annexure P-1. Learned lower appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court vide judgment Annexure P-2. 4. The legality and validity of the judgment Annexure P-2 has been questioned on several grounds, however, mainly that both Courts below have failed to appreciate the facts of the case, particularly the right of light, air and open atmosphere available to the petitioner-plaintiff is likely to be affected in case construction is raised by the 3rd respondent over newly created plot i.e. Plot No. 27A. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. 6. Learned lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal with the following observations: “13. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff has purchased the plot No. 27 from one Surinder Kumar who was the original allottee, with the consent and permission of defendants by way of conveyance deed. The contention of plaintiff is that she purchased the plot as it was a corner plot having roads on two sides. But the perusal of record shows that she has not paid any extra price or premium for the corner plot nor there is any condition in the original allotment letter of Sh. The contention of plaintiff is that she purchased the plot as it was a corner plot having roads on two sides. But the perusal of record shows that she has not paid any extra price or premium for the corner plot nor there is any condition in the original allotment letter of Sh. Surinder Kumar or in the conveyance deed of the plaintiff that the allottee will enjoy passage or road from two sides or that the vacant land from the plot of plaintiff upto the plot No. 34 will remain as it is or will not be utilized by HIMUDA as per its choice. It is true that in the layout plan a road has been shown in the north east and north-west of the plot of plaintiff but it seems to be only temporary because by that time the vacant land between plot No. 27 to 34 was not utilized by the defendants No. 1& 2. Admittedly the vacant land or open spaces including the alleged road and passages are the property of HIMUDA and now it has carved out new plots i.e. plots No. 27A, 34A and 34B by utilizing the vacant land at the spot. Prima facie there is nothing on record to show that by doing so, there is any effect to the light, air, privacy or the right of passage to the plot of plaintiff. The area of the plot of plaintiff seems to be intact. Plot No. 27A has been created at the spot independently and both the plots i.e. plot No. 27 and 27A are separate, distinct and independent plots. It appears that plaintiff has no concern with plot No. 27A which has been purchased by defendant No. 3 from the defendant No. 1 after following the procedure and paying the money. In these circumstances no prima facie case is made out for issuance of adinterim injunction in favour of the appellant/plaintiff as prayed for. 14. A bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the ld. trial court has properly appreciated the legal position and controversy between the parties and as such the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or bad in law so as to require interference by this Court.” 7. 14. A bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the ld. trial court has properly appreciated the legal position and controversy between the parties and as such the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse or bad in law so as to require interference by this Court.” 7. The reasons recorded by learned lower appellate Court as aforesaid makes it crystal clear that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to point out that by way of carving out a new Plot, there is invasion of any right vested in her. The interim injunction can only be granted in case there exists a prima-facie case in favour of a party seeking the same and that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of such party. Additionally, it is also required to be pleaded and prima-facie shown that the refusal of grant of ad-interim injunction will result in miscarriage of justice to such party and in that event the comparative mischief likely to be caused shall be greater to such party as compared to the opposite party. 8. In the case in hand, the petitioner-plaintiff may be enjoying light, air and approach to her plot from both sides, which on account of construction, if raised on the newly carved out plot is likely to be obstructed, however, prima-facie no case is made out that she is enjoying such rights by way of prescription or easement of necessity. On the other hand, the vacant land in between plots, carved out by respondent-defendant No. 1 has now been utilized and new Plots No. 27A, 34A and 34B have been carved out. Respondents defendants No. 1 and 2 is a commercial organization and by carving out new plots, has utilized the land belonging to it in a better way. Therefore, no case for grant of ad-interim injunction as sought is made out in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and both Courts below have rightly declined the same. 9. The impugned judgment, therefore, calls for no interference and this petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Before parting, it is made clear that any observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone.