: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1584 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1743 OF 2009 Chandrakant R. Patel & Anr. .. Plaintiffs V/s. Rambhai R. Patel .. Defendant ..... Mr. J. Reis a/w. Ms. G.P. Vas and Nitin Raut for the plaintiffs Mrs. S.M. Dhamale for the defendant ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. In this suit which is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant an ad-interim order was made on 4th August, 2009 after hearing both sides. This Court considered all the affidavits on record and passed an order by which the defendant who is 85 years of age and the father of the plaintiff No.1, is not disturbed in his old age and is allowed to occupy the premises peacefully and without any obstruction. 2. Both sides do not dispute that this Motion can be disposed off in terms of this ad-interim order but Mrs. : 2 : Dhamale states that the defendant has some complaint with regard to water supply to the premises. She submits that the water supply is given from the temporary connection and it is inadequate and even the pressure is very less. Therefore, the defendant is constrained to get water supply to his premises by water tankers. Further, there is a staircase leading up to the lift but it has no railing and therefore, the defendant apprehends that he may suffer injury, if he has to use the staircase frequently. 3. Upon instructions, Mr. Reis appearing for the plaintiffs states that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the plaintiffs and more particularly plaintiff No.1 will take all steps so as to redress the grievance of the defendant and the plaintiffs would ensure that he has uninterrupted and free water supply and so also he can use the lift by approaching the same through the staircase. On the staircase, a proper railing would be put up by the plaintiffs but the defendant must also co-operate by removing the materials which are lying near the staircase. 4. In my view, these are matters which can be resolved by parties and merely because there is some grievance of the defendant does not mean that the ad-interim order cannot be confirmed. The ad-interim order passed by this Court on 4th August, 2009 is confirmed with liberty being reserved : 3 : to the parties to apply for modification of the same, in case any occasion to do so arises. Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of the ad-interim order with parties bearing their own costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)