1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION [CAS] 132/2010 SECOND APPEALNO.74 OF 2010 Liladhar Wazira Khobragade & others ..vs.. Sukwar @ Chitralekha w/o Chandan Ganvir - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Abhijit Khare, advocate for appellant Shri R.A. Gupte, advocate for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 31st, 2010 . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the contents of the civil application and reply filed thereto. The second appeal is admitted on substantial question of law by order dated 24.2.2010. The trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff / respondent for removal of the encroachment and the first appellate court had reversed the decree passed by the trial court. It is not disputed that there was no interim order passed by either the trial court or the first appellate court, in favour of either of the parties. Since the second appeal is admitted, it would be necessary in the circumstances to stay the effect and operation of the judgment passed by the first appellate court. However, it is stated on behalf of the respondent that the appellants are not permitting the respondent to enter into the lane for making repairs of his property. 2 I have perused the map drawn by the Commissioner. It appears from the perusal of the same that there is enough space for the respondent to enter into the lane and to carry out repairs, even if we exclude the suit property. In such circumstances, the statement made in paragraph 5 of the reply appears to be an afterthought. Even otherwise, it was not the case of the respondent either before the trial court or the first appellate court that the appellants were not permitting the respondent to carry out repairs of his house property. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, prayer made in Civil Application No.132/2010 is granted. Civil Application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE SMP