:1: :1: :1: HIGH HIGH HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6658 OF 2005. PETITION NO. 6658 OF 2005. PETITION NO. 6658 OF 2005. Rajashri Sandesh Chavan. & another. ..Petitioners. Versus. Smt. Sundirabai Shrirang Chavan and others. ..Respondents. --- Shri. Arun Palekar for the Petitioners. Shri. A. R. Kapdnis for the respondent nos. 2 to 8. Shri. Dilip Bodke for respondent no.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.B.MHASE, J. S.B.MHASE, J. S.B.MHASE, J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 5, 2006. : APRIL 5, 2006. : APRIL 5, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri. Arun Palekar. On instructions, he states that he may be allowed to delete petitioner No.1. Leave to delete petitioner no.1 is hereby granted. 2. Regular Civil Suit No. 165 of 2005 has been filed by the respondent no.1 herein Smt. Sundarabai Chavan for partition and possession of the suit properties. In the said suit application, Exhibits -5 & 7 were submitted seeking injunction. Both these applications were disposed of by an order dated 24.6.2005. Original defendant No.1 was prohibited from making any kind of construction or any :2: :2: :2: further construction in the suit property including the structure of whose photographs are produced on record vide Exhibit 18/1 & 2, more particularly described in plaint para 1, by herself, her agents, servants, etc., till the decision of the main suit. It was further directed that the petitioner - defendant no.2 shall immediately remove the shed installed by her in the suit property more particularly described in plaint para 1 by her, vide Exhibit 18/2 within 15 days from the passing of this order, failure of which plaintiff is entitled to remove the shed by appointing Court Commissioner, etc.,. This order was challenged by filing a miscellaneous appeal bearing No. 104 of 2005 which was disposed of by the learned District Judge, Satara on 24.8.2005. The appeals were dismissed and stay to the mandatory part of the impugned order directing the removal of the shed was vacated. 3. Thus, during the pendency of the suit and appeal shed in question was protected by the orders of the Courts. Both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner, who is defendant no.2 in the original suit. 4. Now, the petitioner has filed a sole statement before this Court that the petitioner may be :3: :3: :3: allowed to continue the shed till the disposal of the suit and further made it clear to this Court that the petitioner will not claim any equity in her favour to claim the said portion of the land wherein the shed is situated or in the adjoining land to allot to the share of the petitioner, simplicitor on account of shed being located at that place. She has further stated that no further improvements in the shed will be carried out till final disposal of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed for maintaining the shed in spite of such undertaking. However, this Court finds that the shed is already there, it was protected during the pendency of the appeal by the appellate Court and now the petitioner has given an undertaking and has made a statement before this Court that no benefit of equity will be claimed in the partition simplicitor relying upon the existence of the shed in the said portion of the land. It is further undertaken that no construction will be carried out in respect of the said shed and/or any other portion of that land. Therefore, this Court finds that it will be proper to modify that part of the impugned order since the statements are being accepted. Therefore, the directions given to the petitioner - original defendant no.2 to remove the shed as more specifically :4: :4: :4: described in plaint, paragraph no.5 by the plaintiff vide photograph Exhibit 18/2 is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. In short, the direction given by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai in its order dated 24.6.2005, vide operative part order clause (5) is hereby struck down. However, rest of the directions will continue as against the present petitioner - defendant. Needless to say that, rest of the order is not challenged by other defendants. Therefore, other part of the order will remain as it is. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent makes a request that the suit may be expedited. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for issuing directions to that effect. Since suit is for partition and possession, the trial Court is directed to hear and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Parties are directed to co-operate with the court below. 8. With these directions, petition is disposed of. (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, J.) J.) J.)