1 wp3111.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3111 OF 2011 Mohmmad Hajichand Bagwan & Anr. ....Petitioners. Vs. Rukiyabi Nuruddin Inamdar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Ajit Kenjale, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Kenjale waives service of notice for Respondent No. 1. 2. Heard Mr. Mankapure, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Kenjale, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. 3. Mr. Mankapure contends that the trial Court did not have jurisdiction to pass an order below Exh. 125 and has particular grievance 2 wp3111.11 about clause (2) of the said order. He further submits that when the suit was fixed for argument, such application could not have been entertained. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kenjale, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 contends that in view of the negligence on the part of the landlord in carrying out the tenantable repairs, the application was filed and the trial Court has passed an order which is just and proper. 5. Considering the nature of order, which is passed by the trial Court, at this stage, without going into the question of legality or otherwise of the said order, since the order is an equitable order, I am not inclined to grant any relief save and except clarification in respect of clause 2 of the Order dated 23/9/2010. Though the defendants may proceed to make the necessary repairs in accordance with clause 2 of the order of the Trial Court; it is clarified that since the impugned order makes only on interim arrangement, the question regarding the merits of the main controversy involved in the suit has not been gone into and it is obvious that the Trial Court would decide the Suit in accordance with law and on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties and the situation of the suit premises as on the date of filing of the suit. 3 wp3111.11 6. In the mean time, till the Defendant obtains appropriate permission, in terms of the order dated 6th May, 2011 passed in this Petition, the Defendant is permitted to put up tin shed/temporary construction. 7. It is also clarified that the construction of the aforesaid temporary structure or the construction as permitted by the Trial Court in terms of the clause 3 of the Order dated 23/9/2010 will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and no equities will be claimed by the Respondents/Defendants on account of any such constructions. 8. Rule discharged subject to the aforesaid clarifications. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)