JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):- The present regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of fact whereby the appellant-defendant No.1 has been injuncted to raise construction or to take possession and also to cause any obstruction in the gali situated in South side of house of plaintiff and removal of projection constructed by him for joining two houses within two months. 2. Plaintiff alleged that his house is situated in Mohalla Gurunanakpura shown as mark AEFGH in site plan. On Western side of the house of plaintiff, there is a passage and Southern side is gali. Windows, ventilators and parnale of the house open towards rasta and gali and sun light also enters. Defendant had no concern with aforementioned gali and rasta as it was meant for public use but being quarrelsome, defendant wanted to raise construction. On repeated requests did not budge, rather on the corner of gali constructed one small projection. 3. Defendant No.1 opposed the suit and stated, on merits, that morre and parnale shown by the plaintiff were left with the permission of the defendant. The said gali was left by the defendant on which plaintiff did not have any concern. Fly over existed for a long time, which was never objected to by the plaintiff. 4. Defendant No.2 Municipal Committee was impleaded later on and admitted existence of gali on the southern side of the house of plaintiff. 5. Plaintiff examined seven witnesses and brought on record site plan, photographs and sale deeds etc. whereas defendant examined two witnesses. 6. Mr. Randhawa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove on record that it was a common passage for all. In fact, the aforementioned gali was left on the basis of concession given by the defendant, though defendant specifically stated that he had no intention to raise construction as fly over had already been raised. It is in existence for last 50 years at the height of 15-20 feet. The other side of gali was very narrow and therefore, no movement of vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit, as the written statement of Municipal Committee revealed existence of gali on the southern side. The other side of gali was very narrow and therefore, no movement of vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit, as the written statement of Municipal Committee revealed existence of gali on the southern side. Even if the defendant had undertaken not to raise construction but there is projection to joint two houses. Once existence of gali has been admitted by Municipal Committee, its usage by the public is implied, which belies defence of the defendant alleged to be private one. The question arises is whether on public passage, a projection can be constructed, the answer would be ‘no’, as defendant did not place on record any permission with regard to projection from the Municipal Committee. A person cannot be permitted to flout the bye laws and regulations for his own convenience. 8. In view of such circumstances, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.