little help to the defendant No.1/appellant for the reason that the suit had already been instituted by the plaintiff before the construction was raised on the first floor. It is relevant to mention here that expression “institution of the suit” has been used in Para 5 of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Assuming for a moment that for the purposes of relief of demolition, which was added during the pendency of the suit, the institution be treated from the date, such relief is added, still this Court is of the opinion that considering the fact that the disputed construction over first floor was raised by the defendant No.1/appellant during the pendency of the suit in violation of the temporary injunction granted by the trial court, as such the impugned decree passed by the trial court for removal of only three feet width of construction from the house of the plaintiff does not require interference of this Court. Else, this would amount to giving benefit to the defendant of violating the order of the Court. He cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. Order dated 27.06.1998, passed by the trial court, after hearing the parties, clearly shows that the defendant No.1 was allowed only to do finishing work on the ground floor and not to raise further construction. In the circumstances, the defendant No.1 had taken risk on getting demolished the part of the construction directed to be demolished by the trial court
