ORDER : Plaintiff is aggrieved by the dismissal of an application moved by her under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. The order passed by learned Trial Court on 1.10.2018 dismissing the application has been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge on 31.10.2019. Parties hereinafter are referred to as they were before the learned trial court. 2. Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and alternatively for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff asserted that she is owner in possession of land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 56/175, khasra No. 1685/203, measuring 297 Sq. Meters situated in mauza Thodo Solan, Tehsil and District Solan. Jamabandi for the year 2011-12 was enclosed alongwith the plaint. It was stated that over this khasra number, the plaintiff had constructed a residential building, possession of which she is enjoying alongwith the easementary right for the last more than 50 years. Plaintiff also pleaded that defendant No. 1 was owner of adjoining land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 546/819, khasra No. 2013, measuring 48 square meters situated in mauza Thodo, Tehsil and District Solan. Plaintiff further submitted that on the land owned by defendant No. 1 there existed one old structure of the defendant, which was demolished by the defendant. Grievance of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 1 after demolishing of his old structure was trying to construct a new structure without leaving any set back in violation of Municipal bye laws and also without getting the map sanctioned from the Municipal Council, Solan-defendant No. 3. Plaintiff complained that raising of such construction would block plaintiff’s easementary right of light and air. Alongwith plaint, application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for grant of ad-interim injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2. 2(i) Defendants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement admitted that plaintiff owned and possessed a building adjoining to their owned land. Their defence was that the construction being raised by them was in accordance with the map duly approved by the Muncipal Council, Solan and that the said construction was being raised at the place where their old structure was existed. The defendants in their written statement also highlighted the fact that plaintiff had made a complaint to the Muncipal Council, Solan about raising of alleged illegal construction by the defendants on the spot. The defendants in their written statement also highlighted the fact that plaintiff had made a complaint to the Muncipal Council, Solan about raising of alleged illegal construction by the defendants on the spot. The matter was got investigated by Municipal Council, Solan from its Engineer. It was found that the construction was being raised by defendants No. 1 and 2 as per the sanctioned map and in accordance with the applicable rules and bye laws. It was the stand of the defendants that they were raising the construction on the land owned by them. There was no question of violation of any alleged easementary right of light and air of the plaintiff as the old structure of defendants already existed on the land owned by them. The new construction was being raised by them at the same place where the old structure existed. 2(iii) Defendant No. 3-Municipal Council, Solan in its written statement pleaded that the construction was being raised by defendants No. 1 and 2 in accordance with the sanctioned building plan. It was also stated that after receiving the complaint from the plaintiff, concerned Junior Engineer was deputed to inspect the spot . He submitted his inquiry report that the construction was being carried out by defendants No.1 and 2 at the place where their old structure was located. It was also reported that the construction was being carried out in accordance with the sanctioned building plan. The report of the Junior Engineer alongwith the site plan was enclosed alongwith the written statement. 2(iv) After appreciating the pleadings and contentions of learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court vide order dated 1.10.2018 dismissed the application. This order has been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan on 31.10.2019. 3. Aggrieved against concurrent dismissal of her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the two learned courts below, the plaintiff is now taking a third chance by way of instant petition moved under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that defendants No. 1 and 2 are not raising the construction on the land owned by them. They are not raising the construction at the place where the old structure earlier raised by them existed. Construction is being raised by them in violation of building plan and Municipal bye laws and applicable rules/regulation. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that defendants No. 1 and 2 are not raising the construction on the land owned by them. They are not raising the construction at the place where the old structure earlier raised by them existed. Construction is being raised by them in violation of building plan and Municipal bye laws and applicable rules/regulation. By raising of construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan/Municipal bye laws etc., the easementary right of the plaintiff would be adversely affected. Learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2 submitted that defendants would be raising the construction in accordance with the sanctioned building plan over the land owned by them and at the place where their old structure earlier existed. Learned counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2 denied that the plaintiff had any easementary right as alleged in the plaint. 5. While dismissing the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, both the learned Courts below have taken note of the aspects that as per the report filed by the Municipal Council, Solan, the construction work was being carried out by defendants No. 1 and 2 over the land owned by them and at the place where their old structure existed and that the construction was being raised by them in accordance with the plan duly approved by the Municipal Council. During hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the defendants No. 1 and 2 reiterated that construction (which now stands stayed by virtue of interim order passed in the instant petition) shall be carried out by the defendants No. 1 and 2 in accordance with the approved plan, as per Municipal bye laws/rules etc. and at the place where defendants’ old structure earlier existed. In view of the above, it appears that practically there is no dispute between the parties in respect of permitting the defendants No. 1 and 2 to raise construction in the aforesaid manner on the land in question. The impugned orders dismissing the application are well reasoned and do not call for any interference. The well settled parameters for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC not met in the instant case. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are permitted to raise construction in the aforesaid manner. This petition is disposed of. The impugned orders dismissing the application are well reasoned and do not call for any interference. The well settled parameters for grant of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC not met in the instant case. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are permitted to raise construction in the aforesaid manner. This petition is disposed of. It is clarified that the observations made by the learned Courts below dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC shall remain confined to the adjudication of the application. Pending miscellaneous applications, are also disposed of.