- 1 - 18-cac-251-2011 srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.251 OF 2011 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.374 OF 2009 Dilip D. Sonawane (since deceased) through his Legal Heir- 1a-Nikhil D. Sonawane & Others. .. Applicants. V/s. Smt. Lilabai M. Oswal & Others. .. Respondents. Mr. P. M. Mengane, for the Applicants. Mr. A. P. Kulkarni, for Respondent No.4. CORAM: G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE : 18th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C: 1 On 18th August, 2011, following order was passed:- “1 Leave to add Deputy Engineer, Building Construction Department, Pune Municipal Corporation, having his office at Deputy Commissioner No.3, Shivaji Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Road, Pune, is granted. 2 By order dated 17th September, 2009, the Applicants in Civil Revision Application No.374 of 2009, Original Defendants/ tenant were directed to hand over - 2 - 18-cac-251-2011 possession of part of the suit premises to the extent of 5ft. X 15 ft. with 5 ft frontage on the road to the landlady and the Civil Revision Application was admitted. Since this order was not complied with, the interim relief was vacated by another order dated 29th July, 2010 passed in Civil Application No.343 of 2009. However, by further order dated 8th September, 2010 passed in Civil Application No.339 of 2010 which was filed by the tenant, the interim order was restored, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- and after that, the possession in terms of the order dated 17th September, 2009 has been handed over to the landlady. 3 The application filed by the landlady for construction of a wall for dividing a portion in possession of the tenant and the was however, rejected by letter dated 4th February, 2011 – Exhibit -E annexed to this Civil Application. It appears that prima facie, the Deputy Engineer has proceeded on the basis that proposal for repairs/ development which was submitted, was proposal for shifting of existing wall and on that basis, the application appears to have been rejected. 4 Hence, RULE on this Civil Application. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondents waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Rule will be served on added Respondent No.4 – Deputy Engineer, Construction Department, Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune along with copy of this order through Court, returnable on 12th September, 2011, to be kept on High on Board. 5 In addition to service through Court, the Advocate for the Applicants will also be free to serve the compilation of this Civil Application along with orders dated 17th September, 2009, 29th July, 2010 and 8th September, 2010 as referred above”. 2 Accordingly Mr. Kulkarni has appeared on behalf of the added Respondent. He states that the order dated 4th February, 2011 (Exhibit E- page 20) was passed on the basis of Office Circular No.25 dated 12th - 3 - 18-cac-251-2011 June, 1990. 3 I have perused the said Office Circular. In my opinion, the said Office Circular is not applicable inasmuch as the premises are situated on the ground floor and all that is sought is construction of a wall inside the shop so as to revise the same, pursuant to the order passed by this Court. Hence, Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (aa). 4 Needless to mention that whatever are the official scrutiny fees and other charges, they shall be borne by the Applicants. 5 Prayer for early hearing of the Civil Revision Application is, therefore, rejected. (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)