6. Ms. Mondal during the course of argument further contended that there are three entrances to the building. One entrance is straight way from the road to the ground floor which can only be used by the petitioner and no other person is entitled to use the said entrance, as the same will disturb the privacy of the petitioner. Beside this, there is another staircase in the building from ground floor to the first floor and such staircase is attached to the other entrance gate which is presently using by the opposite party and his family members, which situates in the Northern side of the suit property. Besides these two staircases, there is another iron gate situated at the back side of the building which is completely used by the opposite party and his family members from ground level to the first floor. The common places of the building and vacant area of the land are now using by the opposite party and his family members. Such facts are evident from the report and sketch map prepared by the learned Advocate Commissioner. She further submits, since the main entrance gate is open for ingressing and egressing the building by the petitioner there is no scope of providing any duplicate key by the petitioner to the opposite party. She further submits that there is no prima facie case to pass the said orders by the courts below in as much as the balance of convenience/and or inconvenience is entirely in favour of refusing to the prayers for injunction. Furthermore, if the injunction order be not granted, the opposite party will not suffer any kind of loss, injury or prejudice. Accordingly she has prayed for setting aside the order impugned.
