-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3135 OF 2008 Mr.Bhimrao Bala Kothawale & Ors. : Petitioners (Orig.Plaintiffs) V/s. Mr.Mohammed Balbhai Shikalgar : Respondent (Orig.Defendant) .. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the petitioners. Mr.Machindra Deshmukh for the respondent. .. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : APRIL 6, 2009. P.C. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Deshmukh for the respondent waives service. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the learned District Judge-2, Sangli, dated 4.4.2008 permitting the respondent-defendant to use one foot two inches of the disputed wall from his side for raising construction of pillars. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Court has permitted the defendant to use one foot two inches of the common wall which would mean that -: 2 :- the defendant will reduce the width of the common wall by one foot two inches. According to the learned counsel, this might endanger the safety of the wall. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on some photographs from which it appears that the common wall is, in fact, used as a support by the petitioners for their construction. It appears that if the same is allowed to be reduced to the extent of 1 foot two inches, it will result in weakening the wall. However, without forming an opinion on this, I consider it appropriate that the wall be inspected by a Commissioner who shall be an Architect or a Structural Engineer, to be appointed by the trial Court. This Commissioner shall visit the wall and submit a report to the learned trial Court as to the feasibility of the defendant being allowed to reduce the width of the wall by one foot two inches. The petitioners shall be allowed to object to the report. The Court shall reconsider granting permission to the defendant to reduce the width of the wall by one foot two inches and making construction thereon, after considering the report and objection. 3. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh consideration of the injunction application, in accordance with law. The Commissioner’s costs shall be borne equally by both the parties. Till the trial Court decides the -: 3 :- matter afresh, status quo shall continue. Order accordingly. 4. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 5. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order. S.A. BOBDE, J.