JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. During, the pendency of the plaintiff's suit (i) where-through the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 herein (for short the plaintiff), strived for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, and, mandatory injunction, vis-a-vis, the purported unauthorized construction raised, upon, the defendants' building comprised in khasra No. 120, situated at Mohal Totu, Tehsil and District Shimla (for short "suit property"), (i) hence, the plaintiff through an application, cast under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, strived to obtain relief, of, adinterim injunction, for, hence, during, the pendency of the suit, the defendant being restrained, from, raising the afore purported unauthorized construction, upon, the suit property. 2. The learned trial Court, declined, the apt relief to the plaintiff, and, the aggrieved plaintiff, upon, motioning the learned District Judge begot success upon CMA No. 46-S/14 of 2017, and, the defendant being aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted the instant petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel(s), appearing for the contesting litigants, made a forthright submission before this Court, that, vis-a-vis, the purported unauthorized construction, raised by the defendant, upon, the suit property hence statutory proceedings standing drawn against him, by the Municipal Commissioner, of, MC Shimla. However, the drawing of, the, afore statutory proceedings, against the aggrieved defendant, would not constitute, any, valid embargo against the plaintiff, to, within the ambit of law, espouse for obtaining the relief of mandatory, and, permanent prohibitory injunction, nor, the plaintiff would be barred to, during the pendency of the apposite Civil Suit, (a) make strivings for an order being made qua, during, the phase of lis being sub judice, before the learned trial Court, hence the defendant being restrained, from, raising any purported unauthorized construction, upon, the suit property. Moreover the statutory bar, against the Civil Court(s) hence entertaining any suit for declaring void, the, drawing(s) of apposite statutory proceedings, by learned Commissioner, would work, only against the defendant, and, would not work against the plaintiff. 4. Moreover the statutory bar, against the Civil Court(s) hence entertaining any suit for declaring void, the, drawing(s) of apposite statutory proceedings, by learned Commissioner, would work, only against the defendant, and, would not work against the plaintiff. 4. Be that as it may, as afore-stated, dehors the drawing of statutory proceedings against the defendant, the rearing of apt proceedings, yet, for the purpose of legitimizing, the, afore declining of relief, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, enjoins apt pleadings being borne, in the plaint vis-a-vis (a) upon the defendant hence not leaving the requisite setbacks, in the, apposite portion hence segregating, his, building from the building of the plaintiff, thereupon, valuable right(s) of the plaintiff, appertaining to easementary right(s), of air and light rather being the imminent causality (b) also apposite material with evident display therein qua in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, casting of the afore application, hence engendering, a, conclusion, qua hence, a, prima-facie case exists in favour of the plaintiff, qua besides, balance of convenience being loaded, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, also hence irreparable loss and injury being encumbered, upon the plaintiff, if, the espoused relief is declined qua him. Consequently the afore would ensure, the, making of a firm conclusion qua hence equity being loaded, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, would also ensure, the, making of an invincible inference qua the plaintiff, rather holding an indefeasible right, qua the espoused relief being granted to him, during, the phase of, the, lis being sub judice, before the learned trial Judge. 5. Though the learned trial Court, made an apt conclusion, from the pleadings, and, material existing thereat, yet the learned District Judge has, dehors pleadings in satiation, vis-a-vis, the afore imperative parameters, and, obviously, dehors, any material existing rather for satiation being meted, vis-a-vis, the afore trite tests, has proceeded to disturb, the, order pronounced, by the learned trial Court. In making the afore conclusion, the learned District Judge has made, an, allusion to a plethora of judgments, as, stood recited in the impugned order. In making the afore conclusion, the learned District Judge has made, an, allusion to a plethora of judgments, as, stood recited in the impugned order. However, a perusal of the afore judgment, coaxes an inference, that though the plaintiff, being entitled to cast a suit for rendition of decree, of mandatory as well as of a permanent prohibitory injunction, and, also during, the phase of, the, lis being sub judice before the learned trial Court, the latter being empowered to grant temporary injunction, for, therethrough the defendant being temporarily restrained, to proceed with the purported unauthorized construction, yet the afore legal latitudes or enablements bestowed therethrough, upon the plaintiff, are, restricted, and, trammeled by (a) imperative pleadings being cast in the application, vis-a-vis, upon purported violation, of, the apposite bylaws hence prejudice, injury or harm being caused, upon, the defendant and (b) material in consonance therewith being adduced, and, rather its displaying qua the afore triplicate tests hence prima-facie begetting apt satiation(s), (c) whereas, as aforestated the afore requisite pleadings remained uncast in the suit, and, also in the application, and, nor when obviously, no material in satiation thereof, is appended, with the plaint or with the extant application, (d) thereupon when there was a dire necessity, even, in the citations referred, by the learned District Judge, in, the impugned order, hence cast, upon, the plaintiff to therethrough hence make a valid striving(s) to claim, the espoused relief, whereas, the afore dire necessities, remaining unrecoursed, by the plaintiff, (e) thereupon the citations alluded to by the learned District Judge in the impugned order were workable only, upon, the afore being recoursed, (f) whereas the lerned District Judge, without delving deep, into, the afore necessities, cast therein, upon, the plaintiff, and, when the afore necessities, for the reasons afore-stated, rather remained both un-recoursed, and, unmeted satiation, (g) thereupon, the learned District Judge, has committed, a gross fallacy, in merely, upon, placing reliance upon the judgments mentioned in the impugned order, and dehors the afore imperative necessities being recoursed, to hence proceed to make, the, impugned order. 6. In view of the above, there is merit in the petition. The same is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.