JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction wherein he claimed the hereinafter extracted reliefs:- (a) the defendant is restrained from raising construction in violation to Municipal Laws and provisions of HP Town & Country Planning Act and rules and regulations made thereunder on the land in question and specially without leaving open set back area within the land in question. (b) Defendant is directed to remove all types of constructions raised in whatsoever shape or manner in and upon the open setback area and further to remove all types of illegal construction whatsoever raised may be raised on the land in question. (c) The defendant is directed to make suitable and scientific drainage and sewerage discharge system and arrangement so that no waste or any other type of discharge of effluent waste water sewerage water or any other type of discharge flows from the land in question towards in and upon the suit land. (d) Defendant is restrained from causing from any type of nuisance, loss, injury and further from doing any such act which may in any manner whatsoever may cause any type of prejudice to the peaceful user, rights, title and interest of the plaintiff over and qua the suit property including civic and natural amenities, either himself or through his assigns contractors, relatives and other person claiming through him. During the pendency of the suit, before, the learned trial Court, the plaintiff filed an application cast under the provisions of 39 rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, wherein he sought relief of ad-interims injunction being pronounced upon defendant-respondent herein. The adinterim reliefs prayed for in the application, cast, under the provisions of 39 rule 1 and 2, were, limited to restraining the defendant/respondent herein from raising any construction in violation to the Municipal Laws, H.P. Town and Country Planning Act and Rules and Regulations and was also for restraining the defendant from throwing waste water onto the land of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court upon the aforesaid application recorded an order whereby it restrained the defendant, from, raising construction upon the land owned and possessed by him, if, it is raised in violation of the by-laws also the defendant, was, till the civil suit is adjudicated upon hence restrained from throwing waste water onto the land of the plaintiff. The learned trial Court upon the aforesaid application recorded an order whereby it restrained the defendant, from, raising construction upon the land owned and possessed by him, if, it is raised in violation of the by-laws also the defendant, was, till the civil suit is adjudicated upon hence restrained from throwing waste water onto the land of the plaintiff. The defendant being aggrieved therefrom, instituted an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court in its impugned pronouncement set-aside the order recorded by the learned trial Court. The plaintiff is aggrieved therefrom hence has instituted the instant petition before this Court. 3. The learned First Appellate Court, had, while making the impugned order, ad-extenso, alluded to the building plan sanctioned vis-à-vis the defendant, by the competent sanctioning authority. The learned First Appellate Court had also made a conclusion that since all the relevant materials vividly displayed of the defendant completing construction of a three storied structure, upon, the land owned and possessed by him, hence it would be a wholly redundant exercise, to restrain the defendant from raising construction upon the land owned and possessed by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff herein has contended with vigour, that the learned First Appellate Court in making the aforesaid observation has not heeded to the building plan sanctioned by the competent authority wherein permission was accorded to the defendant to raise 2 and half storeies. However, even if the learned First appellate Court has not heeded to the apposite building plan in respect whereof approval was accorded by the competent authority, yet the appropriate remedy in respect thereof, would not, be of the defendant being restrained, significantly when he has completed constructions, rather if he has digressed from the building sanctions accorded to him, the plaintiff would be at liberty to make appropriate motions before the learned trial Court, for seeking impleadment, of the competent authorities also for casting all apposite averments, in the plaint in respect of digressions deviations, made, by the defendant from the building approvals accorded by the competent authority. Obviously also the learned trial Court, would, if it accepts the aforesaid endeavourers, of, the plaintiff, be enjoined to strike issues also to permit both the contesting parties to lead thereon their respective evidences. Obviously also the learned trial Court, would, if it accepts the aforesaid endeavourers, of, the plaintiff, be enjoined to strike issues also to permit both the contesting parties to lead thereon their respective evidences. Since the aforesaid endeavours constitute the most befitting concerts, for adoption by the plaintiff, for undoing the purported digressions made by the defendant from building approvals, thereupon at that stage the order recorded by the learned First Appellate Court whereby it on the trite anvil, of, the relevant construction standing already completed, hence invalidated the reason assigned by the learned trial Court, for thereupon the latter restraining the defendant from raising construction upon the suit property, does not, suffer from any infirmity and absurdity. Moreover, it does not also suffer from any illegality or from any material irregularity. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended with vigour that the learned trial Court, had, correctly restrained the defendant from throwing waste water upon the suit property, hence the learned first appellate court ought not to have negated the aforesaid relief. However, the relief accorded by the learned trial Court in respect of the defendant being restrained from throwing waste water onto the property of the plaintiff, apparently, is not borne nor founded upon the report of the Local Commissioners or upon certain admissions made by the defendant in his pleadings. Consequently, with the aforesaid relief not being rested upon any tangible material hence its according by the learned trial Court, is, inappropriate rather its negation by the learned First Appellate Court is valid. According, I find no merit in the petition. Petition dismissed. No costs.