* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 394 OF 2004 Bhupinder Singh and Ors. ....Applicants V/S. Dr.Ivan Dias ....Respondent ========= Mr.A.K.Bakshi, adv.for applicants. Mr.J.Reis i/by. Mr.Rajesh N. Kachare, adv.for respondent no.1 Mr.V.V.Mahadik, adv.for respondent no.2. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 21ST NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Civil Application is taken out by the appellants seeking four reliefs. The first relief is for permission to carry out repairs to the suit property. It is contended that there are cracks to the cabin walls which have made the structure unsafe. The appellants contend that the suit property consists of cabin admeasuring 10 ft x 10ft and the open shed beyond it, whereas, the respondent contends that the suit filed by them is not in respect of the cabin. It was in respect of the open shed beyond the cabin and the open space. * 2 * Perusal of the plaint and the written statement confirms the contention of the respondent. 2. Mr.Bakshi, learned counsel for the apepllant draws attention of the court to the order dated 26th May, 20078 which records an agreement on the part of both the sides for carrying out repairs. Mr.Reis, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the agreement was for repairs of the open shed admeasuring 64 sq.ft. Mr.Bakshi, on the other hand submits that what was understood by the appellants is that the agreement is in respect of a portion admeasuring 64 sq.ft out of the cabin admeasuring 100 sq.ft. If the agreement were to be as understood by the appellants, there would have been specific description as regards portion of the cabin which requires repairs. The order does not specify the area in any manner. Therefore it is obvious that submission of the appellants is not correct. Since the premises sought to be repaired by the appellants are not subject matter of the appeal, there is no need for the appellants to seek permission of the court to carry out the repairs. 3. The second relief sought by the appellants is for reconstruction of the toilet block which was allegedly dismantled by the respondents despite the order of status-quo granted in the appeal proceedings. According to the * 3 * appellants, the dismantling had taken place in the year 2004, whereas, the respondent contends that the toilet block stood dismantled in the year 1988 i.e. even before the filing of the suit. In any case, since the toilet block stood dismantled more than four years back, as per the appellants own contention, there need be no relief in terms thereof at the interim stage. 4. The third relief sought is in respect of disconnection of water and electricity supply to the suit premises. This had taken place in the year 2002 i.e. during the pendency of the suit. The appellants had not taken any steps in respect thereof till date. Mr.Bakshi, submits that the appellants desire to carry out business from the cabin after getting the same repaired and that they will need water and electricity connection only thereafter. That is the reason why no application was made by the appellants till date for reconnection. In view of the inordinate delay in filing the application, the same need not be considered at this interim stage. 5. Lastly, the respondents complain about erection of a light pole on the suit property without the approval of the court. Since, the respondent is the owner of the property, erection of a light pole cannot be faulted with at this stage * 4 * and therefore there need be no order for removal of the light pole. The Civil Application is dismissed with no costs. [JUDGE]