1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1075 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1328 OF 2008 Madhur Building No.6 Co-operative : Appellants/ Housing Society Ltd. & ors. Applicants. versus Madhur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd & ors. : Respondents. Shri Anil Singh i/by Shri Sanjeev Singh for the Appellants/Applicants. Shri A.M.Saraogi for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Smt.K.K.Soraan for Respondent No.4-BMC CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 05, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. The Appeal is admitted. 2. So far as reliefs claimed in the Civil Application No.1328 of 2008 are concerned, looking to the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flat Afct especially Sections 7 and 7A thereof, as also the covenants of the Agreement entered into between the Defendant No.3 and the members of the Plaintiffs' society as also the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant No.3 and also looking to the nature of the 2 construction put up which is an additional room to the members of the Defendant No.1 residing on the ground floor of the Plaintiffs' society, in my view, the case for continuation of the ad-interim relief granted on 21st October 2008 is made out. Therefore, there would be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application No.1328 of 2008. It is clarified that the relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is restricted to the area of 1344 sq.yards or 1210 sq.mtrs, bearing Survey No.1128 and Survey Nos.1126, 397/1, 397/3, 441/3, 441/4 and 441/7. 3. It appears that since the Defendant No.1 was in the process of putting up additional construction so as to give an additional room to the persons residing on the ground floor of building No.6, the work of drainage was being undertaken along with the said construction work. The work of drainage is half complete. Shri Saraogi, the learned counsel for original Respondent/Defendant No.1 prays that the said drainage work which is half complete should be allowed to be completed. It is, therefore, clarified that the work relating to the drainage is concerned, the same should be completed by the 3 Defendant No.1. It is further clarified that no construction above the ground level will be carried out in the guise of carrying out the drainage work. Needless to say that no equities Would be claimed on the said basis. 4. Both the learned counsel Shri Anil Singh for the Appellants and Shri Saraogi for the main contesting Respondent No.1, are agreeable to the suit being expedited and disposed of within a particular time framed. 5. Considering the nature of issue involved, the hearing of the L.C.Suit No.2302 of 2007 is expedited and is directed to disposed of within a period of six months from date. 6. In view of the instant interim order which has been passed in the Civil Application No.1328 of 2008, both the learned counsel are also agreeable to the Appeal being disposed of in terms of the said order. The above Appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the instant interim order. The interim order would operate pending the 4 hearing and final disposal of the L.C.Suit No.2302 of 2007. The impugned order dated 10/10/2008 therefore stands substituted by the instant interim order. In view of disposal of the above Appeal, all the Civil Applications stand disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]