IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 177 OF 2011 SHRI. LIONEL FELIX DE LOURDES PEREIRA AND 4 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. DONALD ANTHONY CYRIL PEREIRA ALIAS DONALDO PEREIRA ... Respondent Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. P. Kamat, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 15th June, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kamat, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20th September, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.109/1999 on an application dated 12th November, 2007-exhibit 30 filed by the respondent purporting to be under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. By the said application, the respondent/ plaintiff sought directions against the petitioners/ defendants to carry out repairs as mentioned by the Consulting Engineer in his report failing which, the plaintiff sought permission to execute the repair work at the cost of the defendants with further direction to the defendant to pay the amount as per the estimate. 3. Perusal of the record discloses that by order dated 1st July, 2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.370/2003 in Regular Civil Suit No.109/1999, the application filed by the respondent for injunction was allowed and the defendants were directed to fix the proper roof with eaves and and increase the height of the walls with masonary works so as to cover all the exposed portion of the house including the walls and pillars where the roof beams and frame work rests and in the event the defendant failed to comply with the directions, plaintiff was permitted to do so at the costs of the defendants and the defendants were to pay the costs on the basis of the bill furnished by the plaintiff's contractor for the said work. Admittedly, there is no serious dispute that this order has become final. 4. In view of the above and in view of the earlier order dated 20th September, 2010, the application again filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. by the respondent, was not maintainable. Consequently, the impugned order passed on the said application is liable to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. It is further made clear that the plaintiff is at liberty to take appropriate steps in terms of the order dated 20th September, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao. 5. Writ Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA