1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1206 OF 2009 Aappaso Anna Tare ...Petitioner vs. Sunil Jangonda Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Nagesh Chavan for the petitioner Mr.Rahul Kulkarni for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners. The suit is for mandatory and prohibitory injunction. On an application for temporary injunction an order was passed on 7 th February 2007 by which the said application was allowed and the petitioner was restrained from carrying out any further construction till the disposal of the suit. An Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. These are the two orders which are impugned in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2 My attention was invited to order dated 3 rd December 2009 passed by this Court. The said order notes that the petitioner is ready and willing to file an undertaking as provided in the said order. As per the said order, the petitioner has placed on record undertaking dated 10 th December 2009. In the said undertaking, the petitioner has stated that he will not carry out any further construction or any additional floor over the suit property except the minor finishing work of plastering and painting. He has stated that he will not claim any 2 equity on the ground that the construction of the building has been carried out and that the construction will be subject to final outcome of the suit. In view of this undertaking, a limited modification deserves to be made to the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the construction work has been carried out without obtaining the permission of the competent authority. It is obvious that this Court or the Courts below have not made any adjudication on the issue of legality of the construction carried out by the petitioner. If the concerned competent Authority finds that the construction is unauthorised or illegal, the competent Authority is always free to take action in accordance with law. 3 Hence, the Petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Impugned Judgments and orders are confirmed with modification that the petitioner will be permitted to carry out only minor finishing work such as plastering and painting as well as the work of fixing entrance gate. ii)The undertaking dated 10 th December 2009 filed by the petitioner is accepted. iii)It is obvious that the construction carried out by the petitioner will be subject to final outcome of the suit and the petitioner will not be entitled to claim any equity on the ground that he has been permitted to complete the work by this order. iv)All contentions of the parties on merits of the pending suit are expressly kept open. JUDGE