1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.250 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.292 OF 2009 Anna Louis Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. : Appellants versus Janardhan Atmaram Rawool and ors. : Respondents. Shri Anthony T Marques for the Appellants. Shri Janardhan A Rawool - Respondent No.1 in person. Shri G H Keluskar for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Smt. K K Soraan for the Respondent No.6-BMC CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 27, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 16th January 2009 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai by which order the Notice of Motion filed by the Appellant/society, which is Defendant No.6 in L C Suit No.5497 of 2006, came to be partly allowed in the following terms :- “(1) Interim order dated 13/07/2006 passed 2 by this Court in notice of motion 13/07 is modified to the extent that the toilet and bath room shall be used simultaneously by plaintiff and his family members as well as by security personnel and other staff members of the defendant No.6 society and plaintiff shall not keep toilet and bath room under his lock. Similarly, plaintiff shall deposit Rs.400/- per month in the Court towards use of toilet and bath room and enjoyment of water supply, from January 2009 onwards. (2) Defendant No.6 society is not permitted to withdraw the said amount till the final decision of the suit on merit.” 2. The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff, who has filed L C Suit No.5497 of 2006 inter-alia prayed for directions that the Defendants, their agents and person working under them to allow the Plaintiff and his family members to use toilet and bathroom situated at CTS No.280 and to pass further order to direct the Defendants to open the entry from outside for the toilet. 3. In the said suit, the Plaintiff has filed Notice of Motion seeking directions against the Defendants to allow the Plaintiff and his 3 family members to use toilet and bathroom situated at CTS No.280 and further to direct the Defendants to open the entry from outside for the toilet. The Plaintiff has also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to reconnect the water supply to the rooms of the Plaintiff situated at Room Nos.A/2 and A/3, Shankar Niwas, Chawl No.4, behind Bank of Maharashtra, Opp. Vikhroli Railway Station (East), Mumbai 400 083. The said Notice of Motion came to be made absolute in terms of the prayer clauses (a) and (b). The Appellant herein was not a party to the said suit. The said order dated 13/6/2007 was challenged by the developers who are Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the suit by filing Appeal from Order 568 of 2007. The said Appeal from Order came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 01/04/2008 in view of statement made by the Appellants that they are no longer in possession of the plot or structure standing thereon and that a society has been formed of the residence of the building constructed on the said plot of land and the society is in possession of the structure and conveyance has not been executed. 4 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13/06/2007, the Appellant-Society filed Notice of Motion for modification of the said order dated 13/06/2007 as the Appellant was thereafter joined as a party to the said suit. The said Notice of Motion was numbered as Exhibit 8 of 2008. It was the case of the Appellant-Society in the said Notice of Motion that the security personnel and other staff members of the society are entitled to use the toilet and bathroom. Therefore, the toilet and the bathroom have to be used simultaneously by the Plaintiff and his family members on the one hand and the security personnel and the other staff members of the society on the other hand and, the Plaintiff cannot keep the toilet and the bathroom under his lock. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he has been getting water by getting extended the water pipe line of the Defendant-6 Society to his premises. 5. The learned Judge considering the said facts and considering the earlier order dated 13/06/2007 allowed the Notice of Motion Exhibit-8 filed by the Appellant Society to the extent mentioned herein above. 5 6. On behalf of the Appellant-Society various contentions are sought to be raised as regards the manner in which the water connection has been taken by the Plaintiff i.e the Respondent No.1 herein as also as regards the manner in which the Plaintiff is conducting himself. In respect of the said grievances, it would be open to the Plaintiff to adopt appropriate proceedings in that regard. 7. Having considered the impugned order and the conspectus of the facts in which the said order came to be passed, in my view, no case for interference is made out. Though the Appellant i.e the Defendant No.6 in the Suit would have to bear the expenses for the water drawn by the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1, the trial Court has adequately protected the interest of the Appellant by directing the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 to deposit the sum of Rs.400/- per month. The Appellant would therefore be at liberty to file an Application for withdrawal of the amount after the same accumulates substantially. In case such an Application is made by the Appellant-Society, the same would be considered by the trial Court on its own merits and in 6 accordance with law. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 8. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.292 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]