1 AO NO.108/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.108 OF 2010 Shri Vijay Savlaram Shastri, Age 68 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o Near Bhaskar Meridian, Opp. Swantraya Sainik Colony, Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad. ... APPELLANT VERSUS Shri Ratnakar Vishwambharrao Mulay, Age 68 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o H.No.4-12-56, C.T.S. No.4739, Nageshwarwadi, Aurangabad, deceased, per L.Rs. . 1. Shri Raju Ratnakar Mulay, Age 40 years, Occ. Service. 2. Smt. Shakuntala Ratnakar Mulay, Age 60 years, Occ. Household, Both R/o as above. ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.V. Adwant, Advocate for the appellant Shri M.M. Joshi, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 6th December, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2 AO NO.108/2010 2. Grant of injunction, restraining the appellant from carrying any construction in an area of 6 ft. abutting the respondents is questioned. Ownership of appellant or the respondents to the respective properties is not in the controversy. There is a valid permission in favour of the appellant from the competent authority which incorporate user or permissibility for the 6 ft. area, prevented by the learned Judge. The theory of easement that has been propagated will have its ramifications only on conclusion of trial. At this stage, if the appellant carries the construction activities in his area, including the 6 ft. disputed portion, such construction would be at the risk and consequence of the appellant. It is clarified, the appellant shall not be claiming any equity if he lose in Special Civil Suit No.211/2010 pending before the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. With the above clarifications, the order passed below Exh.5 in the said suit are modified. Appeal from Order disposed of. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE