ORDER AND JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 26.05.2016 passed by Additional District Judge Sojat, District Pali, vide which the appeal filed by the defendant against grant of injunction of Civil Judge, Sojat City, was allowed and the order vide which injunction was granted was quashed. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner has argued that the weigh-bridge is being constructed on the road which is adjacent to the house of the plaintiff and if the stay is not granted, movement of vehicular traffic on the weigh-bridge would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff and he would suffer irreparable loss. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Takhat Singh @ Norat Mal v. The Municipal Council, Ajmer 2006(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1466, which was a case where the dispute pertained to a Chabutari and construction was being raised upon it. The Chabutari belong to the Municipal Council, the Court observed that the Municipal Council has no jurisdiction to give sanction for construction over Chabutari. 4. Reliance has also been placed on Representative Aam Janta, Village Berdo Ka Bas & Anr. v. Gramin Vikas Vihyan Samiti, Jelu Gagadi & Ors. 200691) DNJ (Raj.) 421, wherein the Court observed that if there is prima facie case, status quo should be preserved. 5. Reliance has also been placed on Asha Ram v. Ram Niwas 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 637, wherein the Court observed that if the width of way not denied, prima facie case can be gathered and injunction order should be granted. 6. Reliance has also been placed on Smt. Kishna Devi v. Vishnu Mitra & Anr. AIR 1982 Rajasthan 281, wherein the Rajasthan High Court granted stay even where there was permission of UTI for raising construction. 7. Reliance has also been placed on Satram Dass v. State & Ors. 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 623, wherein the construction was raised without permission the court directed for demolition of the construction. 8. I have considered the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by Civil Judge Junior Division. 9. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were owners of the property adjacent to the property of the plaintiff. 8. I have considered the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by Civil Judge Junior Division. 9. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were owners of the property adjacent to the property of the plaintiff. There being a road in between, due to acquisition by the National Highway Authority for four laning the highway portion of the property of the defendant was acquired and the defendant was left with only 92 Sq. meter of land. 10. It is apparent from perusal of the order that the defendant was having a weigh-bridge on his land prior to the filing of the suit and after the part of his land was acquired for four laning. He is now shifting the weigh-bridge to the land remaining with him. No official document is produced to establish, there is a 20 Ft. road between the house of the plaintiff and land of defendant. 11. The defendant admittedly was having a weigh-bridge on his land and because of four laning, he has now been forced to shift his weigh-bridge to the remaining land in his possession. A person has right to livelihood and merely because suit is filed, he cannot be restrained from running a weigh-bridge which he has been running even prior to the filing of the suit. If the weighbridge is coming on the road, it is for the Government Authorities to take action against the defendant. No prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff, so as to stop the defendant from earning his livelihood. 12. The impugned order has taken care of the arguments advanced by the counsel. The judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner do not have any applicability to the facts of the case as this is a clear case where the defendant is putting the weigh bridge in his own land which is available to him after part of his land was acquired for four laning. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the movement of heavy vehicle would cause nuisance, cannot be accepted because the defendant was already having a weigh-bridge and the vehicles were coming to the weighbridge. 13. There being no illegality in the impugned order, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay petition also stands disposed.