: 1 : 4135-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4135 OF 2011 Smt. Leelabai Zumbarlal Chopda .. Petitioner v/s. Mr. Garibsingh Bhagatsingh Chotmuradi .. Respondent ......... Mr. Mohit Bansali for the petitioner ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 16th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. The respondent herein filed Suit in the R.C. Suit No.11 of 2010 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Manmad, Tal. Nandgaon, Dist. Nashik. The respondent filed an application for injunction in terms of Exh.5. That application was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.32 of 2010 in the Court of learned District Ad- hoc District Judge-I, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik. That Miscellaneous Appeal has been allowed and the impugned order dated 10th June, 2010 passed below Exh.5 was set aside and application for injunction is allowed and the present petitioner is restrained from carrying out construction in the suit premises. : 2 : 4135-11-wp=.sxw 2. In the course of arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to the letter issued by the Chief Officer, Manmad, Municipal Council dated 8th December, 2009. No doubt, this permission has come to an end in September, 2011. This will mean that as of today, the petitioner does not hold any permission from the Municipal Authority to carry out construction even if it is accepted for a moment that the petitioner can carry out construction. 3. After having considered the entire record, it is clear that there appears to be patent dispute between the petitioner and the respondent as regards right of the petitioner to carry out construction work in respect of certain portion as the said portion is being treated as common by the respondent. As against this, the petitioner claims that he has a right to carry out construction work in accordance with permission, which he had then secured in the year 2009. In a situation like this, it would be open for the petitioner to make an application to the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Manmad, Dist. Nashik setting out therein the area where he proposes to carry out construction and also by making out prima-facie case that he has right to carry out construction on the said area where he proposes to carry out the construction work. Once, this application is : 3 : 4135-11-wp=.sxw decided and once the permission from the Court is obtained to carry out construction work, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for appropriate sanction from the concerned Municipal Council and then carry out the work. 4. On the basis of the record, it is clear that as to at which site if the work is carry out, it would be without any dispute, is not very much certain and in order to resolve this controversy, the petitioner will have to make a separate application. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge,-I, Malegaon. If the petitioner makes an application to the Trial Court and gets a permission, then he would be able to carry out work subject to permission from Municipal Authorities. 5. Petition stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. If at all the petitioner files an application in the above terms, it will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)