1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 434 OF 2007. Mrs. Maria Marcelina Da Piedade Clement E Costa (Dec.) through Petitioner No. 2, Miss Inez Ludocina Da Costa ….. Petitioner V/S. Shri Manguesh Reghuvir Bandodkar ….. Respondent Mr. Gaurish M. Kudchadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. C. DHARAMDHIKARI, J. DATE : 22 ND JULY 2008. ORAL ORDER : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition challenges interim orders in the suit instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff. 2. Presently, the Trial Court’s order of interim injunction has been reversed by the lower appellate Court. 3. The materials before the Trial Court, so also, the lower appellate Court are referred to by the learned Counsel in support of his submission 2 that considering that the premises are very old and the wall, which is common to both premises namely that of the original plaintiff and the defendant, it is necessary that suitable interim orders and measures be made in favour of the plaintiff. The interim orders be made so that the plaintiff is in a position to repair an old and dilapidated wall. The repairs could not be effected on account of existence of an electric pole and a water pipeline. Both are allegedly obstructing the same. 4. During the course of his arguments, the learned counsel does not dispute that presently the petitioner- plaintiff is not armed with repair permission or any permission enabling him to carry out construction/renovation at the site. He has not approached the local Panchayat or Council for such a permission. If he approaches the Council or the local body and such local body is pleased to grant repair/construction permission/licence in favour of the plaintiff then I have no doubt in my mind that the plaintiff can approach the Trial Court for variation of the interim order and such modification as is necessary, so as to preserve and protect the subject matter of the suit. Needless to state that if such permission/licences are obtained by the plaintiff and he approaches the Trial Court, the Trial Court is at liberty to modify the interim order in the suit and merely because the Trial Court's order has been reversed earlier, 3 does not mean that the Trial Court is unable to take into consideration the changed circumstances pointed out and modify so also vary the impugned interim order. With all these clarifications, there is no reason to interfere at this stage. Petition is disposed of. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NH/-