-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No. 553 of 2008 with Civil Application No.555 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.2834 of 2006 with Writ Petition No.2834 of 2006 Ganga Housing Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant vs. 1. Hoganas India Ltd. and ors. ..Respondents Shri P.B.Shah i/b Smt.Rutuja Ambekar for applicant. Shri Madhav Jamdar for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 28th February, 2008 28th February, 2008 28th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Both these civil applications seek identical reliefs and are heard together. The relief that is sought is that the interim order passed in the main writ petition be vacated. The applicant is original respondent no.1 to the petition and original defendant to the suit filed in the Trial Court whereas the original petitioner is the plaintiff. 2. This Court has while admitting the writ petition granted interim relief in terms of -2- prayer clause (b) of the writ petition which reads as under: "(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, the respondent no.1, its agents, contractors and any person claiming through them be restrained by an order of injunction from carrying on any alterations, additions or demolitions in the basement of the building known as "Ganga Commerce" Plot No.4, North Main Road, Koregaon Park, Pune 411 001 and the respondent no.1 be further restrained by an order of injunction from changing the user of basement from parking to commercial and further from using the basement for any other purpose other than parking." 3. This Court upon prima facie satisfaction and finding that the writ petition requires consideration proceeded to grant this relief. 4. My attention is invited by both sides to the controversy in the suit, namely, user of the basement. The plaintiff’s case is that the -3- basement in the building is given for specific purpose and user thereof is restricted as permitted by D.C.Rules. The defendant on the other hand contends that the entire building is commercial structure and, therefore, basement being part of the same, can be used for commercial purpose and has its own identity so also can be sold and transferred as an independent unit. This controversy is pending in the suit. The lower Appellate Court modified the injunction order and while modifying the injunction of the Trial Court, directed that the original defendant no.1 is restrained from carrying on any alterations, additions or demolition in the basement of the building without prior sanction of the Corporation. The basement is also allowed to be used for commercial purpose as prescribed by the Corporation Rules. 5. Prima facie, the order of the Trial Court which, to my mind, is restricting the user to parking and not granting any liberty to apply for change thereof to any other user or commercial purpose, should have been maintained in the peculiar facts of this case, more so when the root controversy is with regard to to the -4- user of the basement. In such circumstances, it is not possible to vacate the interim order passed by this Court. 6. However, considering the limited controversy between the parties and that now the pleadings are complete, issues are settled and the matter is ready for hearing, interest of justice would be subserved if Reg.Civil Suit No.1104 of 2005 is directed to be disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly, Trial Court to endeavour and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and by 31st January, 2009. All contentions of both sides on merits are expressly kept open and interim reliefs granted by this Court shall not in any manner preclude them from raising appropriate pleas in that behalf. 7. Since I am not inclined to vacate the interim order in the writ petition, civil applications cannot be granted and they are accordingly dismissed. 8. Further, considering the fact that rejection of the civil applications means that interim injunction as granted by the Trial Court and continued by this Court remains in force and -5- operation till the writ petition is also disposed of but hearing of the suit in the Trial Court itself being expedited no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition on the file of this Court. The writ petition is also disposed of. Interim order granted by this Court on 3rd May, 2006 shall continue as an interim order in the suit and will remain in operation till the same is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)