1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3197 OF 2007 Jehangir Adi Wadia & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Mrs.Bavi Begum Allarakha & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Ahmed Sayed and Asmitha Pojari i/b. Consuta Legal for petitioners Ms.Kanta S.S.Anand for respondent No.1 Mr.Santosh Sigh H/f.Gabriel Pillai for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th January 2008 P.C. . Petitioners are the original disputants in the dispute which has been filed in the trial court. The first respondent is the original opponent No.1 whereas the second respondent society is original opponent No.2. 2. Petitioners who are original 2 disputants state that they have acquired the premises bearing Garage Nos. 3 and 4 in the building of the second respondent. The first respondent is occupying Flat No.1/103 on the first floor. The said flat is located above one of the garages. There are leakages inside the garage and repairs thereto is the dispute between the parties. Repairs need to be carried out to the flat above garages as well so as to avoid leakage and seepage. 3. Injunction granted by the trial court has been vacated by the lower appellate court. That is how the original disputants are before me. 4. On the last occasion I had observed during the course of arguments that with a view to show their bonafides, original disputants should deposit some amount or atleast proportionate share of the repairs insofar as subject repairs. The contribution should be in 3 accordance with the report of M/s.Paralkar & Dallas. It appears that the estimated cost of repairs was Rs.75,000/-. The petitioners expressed their willingness to deposit Rs.25,000/- and the learned Counsel appearing for them has got a pay order in the said sum. The same is handed over to the Advocate for second respondent society. 5. The payment/deposit so also the receipt are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending dispute. I am informed by the Society’s Advocate that entire building is under repairs. Be that as it may, dispute is concerning the premises in possession of the petitioners and respondent No.1. Learned Counsel for petitioners and respondent No.1 both make a statement that, if the same require any repairs or further repairs, then, their respective premises shall be allowed to be inspected and if any repairs are necessary, 4 the same also will be permitted to be carried out. Petitioners have shown their bonafides and have handed over a pay order for Rs.25,000/-. They should not be called upon to hand over or pay any further sums. First respondent shall allow her flat to be inspected and if any repairs are necessary, she also must make a matching contribution. Repairs to be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date inspection is complete. These are internal repairs and, therefore, said work can be done independent of the repairs to the building. 6. Needless to state that the society will consider as to whether the leakages or seepages in the garages of petitioners is due to the flat above one of the garage or the flat above that and if that is requiring any repairs, even such arrangement would be made by the society. All payments and receipts are without prejudice and subject to the outcome of the pending dispute. 5 7. Needless to state that the flat No.104 may also be inspected by respondent No.2 society. Needless further to clarify that the repairs to the garages Nos. 3 and 4 will not be subject to any repairs in the flat No.104. Those repairs will be carried out irrespective of the fact whether flat No.104 is permitted to be repaired or not. Petition disposed of accordingly. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)