Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 723 of 2007 M/s. Vision Advertising ...Petitioner V/s. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 721 OF 2007 M/s. Selvel Publicity & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner V/s. Union of India & ors. ...Respondents Mr. S.S.Kanetkar for the petitioners. Mr. P.M.Pradhan i/b. Jayant Satpute, P.P. for Union of India. Mr. K.J.Kandpile for respondent no.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2009 : 5TH JANUARY, 2009 : 5TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. It is seen that the Courts below have proceeded on the basis of the stand taken by the petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint. In the plaint, the petitioner has admitted that defendants 2 & 3 have received the suit land on old grant terms from the Cantonment Board. If it is so, no fault can be found with the proposed action of the Cantonment Board 2 to proceed against the hoardings displayed on the suit property on the ground that the same are illegal and unauthorised. Indeed, the Cantonment Board, as a consequence of the notice would be entitled to proceed against the disputed structure by following due process of law. The Cantonment Board cannot be heard to contend that they would remove the disputed structure unilaterally or forcibly. 2. However, before this Court, it is now contended that defendants 2 and 3 are the absolute owners of the suit land. It is stated that this aspect was raised even before the Appellate Court. On this factual position, the petitioner-plaintiff contends that since the respondents 2 & 3 are the absolute owners of the property in question, the Cantonment Board has no causal connection with the said property and for which reason has no authority to take any action with regard to disputed structures. At best, it is the respondents 2 & 3 who can proceed against the petitioner-plaintiff in respect of the disputed structure by following due process of law. However, this argument cannot be countenanced so long as the pleadings filed before the trial Court by the petitioner-plaintiff remain unchanged. This argument can be pursued by the petitioner only after the pleadings were to be amended. 3 3. Realising this difficulty, Counsel for the petitioner submits that in that case the petitioner be permitted to move the trial Court for amendment of the pleadings and thereafter seek appropriate relief as may be advised. Only for this limited purpose, it is ordered that status-quo with regard to disputed structure be maintained by the parties for a period of two weeks from today. It is made clear that this order is not an expression of opinion on the correctness of the stand of the petitioner regarding the new case made out that defendant nos. 2 and 3 are the absolute owners of the suit property. All questions in that behalf will have be considered on its own merits by the trial Court including while considering the issue of granting any interim-relief after the pleadings are amended. 2. Petition disposed of on the above terms. Needless to observe that the trial Court will consider the application for amendment of pleadings, if made by the petitioner-plaintiffs expeditiously. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]