M.M. Das, J
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants who were petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 9095 of 2003.
2. Facts of the case reveal that the appellants as plaintiffs filed T.S. No. 541 of 2001 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ist Court, Cuttack, praying therein for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the construction/reconstruction/repair work of the shop rooms standing over the disputed property. The appellants filed an application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC vide Misc. Case No. 311 of 2001 before the trial Court. After hearing, the learned trial Court by order dated 29-1-2002 dismissed the said Misc. Case on the finding that the appellants were tenants and defendant No. 1 being a member of the Trust Board, is the Landlord and, as such, the Landlord cannot be restrained by an order of injunction and that the Pleader Commissioner who was deputed by the learned trial Court reported that the shop rooms were in habitable condition. The trial Court found that there is no prima facie case made out by the appellants and no irreparable injury will be caused to them if the order of injunction is withheld. The appellants being aggrieved, filed Misc. Appeal No. 32 of 2002 which was ultimately dismissed by the learned District Judge by his order dated 2-9-2002. The appellants thereafter preferred W.P. (C) No. 9095 of 2003. By the impugned order dated 18-11-2003 the learned single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal as a Letters Patent Appeal.
3. We have perused the order dated 18-11-2003 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 9095 of 2003, which is impugned in the present appeal. From the said order it appears that the learned single Judge after considering the case of the appellants as made out in the plaint, found that allowing the interim order of injunction in favour of the appellants would amount to allowing the prayer made in the suit, as the sole dispute in the suit, is that the defendant No. 1 is interfering with the plaintiffs construction/reconstruction/repair work of the shop rooms in which they are tenants. It was, therefore, rightly concluded by the learned single Judge that the trial Court was right in refusing to grant interim order of injunction on the ground that the same would amount to granting the relief claimed in the suit. It has also been taken note of, in the impugned order dated 18-11-2003 that the learned District Judge was right in holding that the defendants did not produce any document in proof of obtaining permission from the Cuttack Municipal Corporation for constructing or repairing work, which is required under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950.
4. We, therefore, find no infirmity or perversity in the order impugned in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.