: 1 : 227-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 227 of 2011 . Mahesh Mahadji Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Prakashrao Tukaram Deshmukh & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. P.S. Dani with Karan Thorat for the petitioners Mr. A.A. Sayyid for the respondents ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The respondents herein filed R.C. Suit No.235 of 2008 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Karad, Dist. Satara. In the present suit, the application below Exh.5 was filed and that application was granted by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division by order dated 23rd February, 2009. On account of the said order, the petitioners were restrained from carrying out the construction on the suit property bearing City Survey No.222/C in any manner during the pendency of the Suit. By : 2 : 227-11-wp=.sxw another item, the petitioners were restrained from obstructing the respondents from using stair case, steps, passage, gallery, bathroom , water tank, drainage, electric connection, tap connection etc. 2. Being aggrieved by this order, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.19 of 2009 came to be filed by the present petitioners, which has been dismissed by learned District Judge-2, by order dated 5th December 2009. 3. In the course of the arguments, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew my attention to the sketch drawn in regard to various properties such as 222A to 222G. The record clearly indicates that second part of injunction granted by the order below Exh.5, relates to property which is being enjoyed by both the sides as and by way of easementary rights. The petitioners before the learned District Judge gave a suggestion in writing dated 7th October, 2009 by which they had imposed certain restrictions on them and wanted to suggest that such of the properties which are being enjoyed as easementary rights can be shifted and petitioners can be permitted to carry out construction and that arrangement would meet the ends of justice. It is seen that this suggestion coming from the petitioners was not acceptable to the respondents. : 3 : 227-11-wp=.sxw Thereafter, the learned District Judge-2 has considered the order below Exh.5 and has confirmed the same by dismissing the Civil Appeal. 4. In my view, if the property in question, on which easementary rights were being enjoyed by both the parties was suggested to be shifted to some other location to enable the petitioners to carry out the work and if that was not agreeable to respondents, it will clearly go to show that the respondents were not inclined to sanction modification of their easementary rights. If that be so, learned District Judge had no other alternative but to reject the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal as respondents wanted to enjoy their easementary rights without any interference or without any modification. I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 5. Hence, this petition is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)