Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : 1. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 18 dated 3rd September, 2016 passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Contai, in Title Suit No. 27 of 2015 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant. 2. This first miscellaneous appeal was admitted for hearing on 29th September, 2016. 3. Today while we are considering the appellant's prayer for extension of the interim order passed in this appeal on 29th September, 2016, we are requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties for disposing of the appeal itself on merit. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that all relevant papers which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are annexed to the application for interim injunction. 4. On such prayer being made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have decided to hear out the appeal on the basis of the materials available before us by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal. 5. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the present case. 6. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the defendants in respect of 'Kha" schedule property. Some of the defendants viz. the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 appeared in the said suit and filed an application before the learned Trial Court seeking permission to raise construction on a part of the suit property. The learned Trial Court refused to grant such permission to those defendants by holding interalia that at such early stage of the suit, such permission cannot be granted to those defendants as the right, title and interest of the parties in the suit property is yet to be decided in the suit. The learned Trial Judge also held that no co-sharer can be permitted to raise any construction on the undivided suit property. Such order was passed by the learned Trial Judge on 11th May, 2016 vide order No.14. 7. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit property. Such relief was claimed by the plaintiff with the allegation that the defendants have collected building materials for raising construction over a part of the suit property. 8. 7. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit property. Such relief was claimed by the plaintiff with the allegation that the defendants have collected building materials for raising construction over a part of the suit property. 8. The defendants contested the said application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff by filing objection denying the allegation made out in the application for temporary injunction. They claimed that the plaintiff has no title in the suit property. Thus, they denied that the plaintiff is their co- sharer in respect of the suit property. They further claimed that by virtue of the partition effected amongst the co-sharers of the suit property, the part of the suit property on which such construction is made, was allotted to those defendants. As such, they have right to raise construction over a part of the suit property on which they are raising construction. They further alleged that there was an old existing construction over the suit property and the defendants in fact, are renovating the old damaged existing construction and is also raising some new construction thereon. 9. They thus, prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. The learned Trial Judge was pleased to reject the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction by the impugned order. The learned Trial Judge, while passing the impugned order primarily relied upon the report of the Commissioner wherefrom it appeared that substantial construction had already been raised in a part of the suit property as back as in November, 2015. The learned Trial Judge found that the plaintiff was not at all diligent in seeking such interim relief by way of injunction as he waited till June, 2016 for filing such an application for injunction, though construction was started even before November, 2015. 10. Since substantial construction has already been raised, the learned Trial Judge by relying upon a decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2014(3) WBLR, CAL 318 (Smt. Satu Bala Dassi & Ors. -vs- Chaturanan Sahu & Ors.) was ultimately pleased to reject the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction as the plaintiff has not approached the learned Trial Court seeking such relief immediately after such construction was started. 11. -vs- Chaturanan Sahu & Ors.) was ultimately pleased to reject the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction as the plaintiff has not approached the learned Trial Court seeking such relief immediately after such construction was started. 11. The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the plaintiff. 12. Though it is true that the application seeking permission to raise construction filed by some of the defendants was rejected by the learned Trial Judge earlier, but in fact, no restraint order was passed by the learned Trial Judge restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the joint properties. Even assuming that defendants are not the absolute owners of the suit property and they are the co-sharers of the plaintiff, but still then, it is settled law that a co-sharer can enjoy or exercise his right in each inch of the joint property. Of-course it is true that exercise of such right by co- sharers should not be allowed to be made in such a way by which exercise of right of the other co-sharers in the joint property is affected. 13. Since it appears from the record that such construction was started by some of the defendants at a point of time when there was no restraint order, we cannot hold that the defendants are very desperate persons who started raising construction in disregard of the order of the Court. 14. Local inspection was held by an Advocate Commissioner as back as on 21st November, 2015. The learned Commissioner submitted a report mentioning therein that even on the date of holding such inspection i.e. in November, 2015 some constructions had already been made over the suit property. In fact, twenty pillars were in the process of casting in November, 2015. 15. On perusal of the Commissioner's report it appears to us that the construction was started prior to November, 2015 but still then plaintiff did not come forward to restrain the defendants from raising such construction on the suit property. He allowed the defendants to raise such construction by investing money on such construction. When the defendants were allowed to raise such construction by investing such huge money over the suit property, the plaintiff cannot now be permitted to seek any interim relief for restraining the defendants from completing such construction. 16. He allowed the defendants to raise such construction by investing money on such construction. When the defendants were allowed to raise such construction by investing such huge money over the suit property, the plaintiff cannot now be permitted to seek any interim relief for restraining the defendants from completing such construction. 16. Thus, if we look at the problem from this angle then we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application for interim injunction on the ground of delay and/or latches on the part of the plaintiff. 17. However, in course of hearing of this injunction application, Mr. Tarapada Das, learned advocate, appearing for the defendants informs this Court to the Court's query, after taking instruction from his client, who is present in Court, that his clients are not raising such construction after obtaining necessary permission from the local authorities under the West Bengal Panchayat Act. 18. Section 23 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act prohibits raising of such construction without any permission from the local authority. 19. As such, we hold that the defendants cannot be permitted either to raise any further construction or to complete such construction without obtaining any sanctioned plan from the local authority. 20. We, thus, set aside the impugned order and restrain the defendants from raising any further construction and/or completing the incomplete construction already raised over the suit property without obtaining any sanctioned plan from the local authority under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, with a further rider that in case, permission for raising such construction is obtained by the defendants from the local authority, the defendants may renew their prayer for completing the incomplete construction as per the sanctioned plan before the learned Trial Court and in that event the learned Trial Court after considering the defendants' such prayer is pleased to grant permission to the defendants for completing such incomplete construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan, then only the defendants will be permitted to raise such construction and/or complete such incomplete construction. 21. 21. It is, however, made clear that in the event such permission is granted by the learned Trial Court and the defendants are permitted to complete such incomplete construction, they will not be permitted to claim any equity for raising such construction over the suit property and the fate of such construction will also abide by the result of the suit. 22. The appeal is, thus, allowed. 23. Both the appeal and the application are thus, disposed of. 24. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocates for the parties immediately.