: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.436 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.511 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.733 OF 2008 IN L.C.SUIT NO.658 OF 2008 Suryakant S. Sharma ....Appellant V/s. M/s.Noble Constructions & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel with Mr.G.R. Mishra for the Appellant. Mr.Rajesh Sharma with Mr.Sunil Jadhav for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Jagdish Jayale for Respondent No.4. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 2ND MAY, 2008. P.C. : 1. Admit and heard finally. 2. The only question is whether the suit property is the same as the property which is the subject matter of the consent decree in Suit No.1980 of 1981. It is true that the CTS number mentioned in the decree is 378, whereas the subject matter of the present suit is CTS No.376. Thus far there has been : 2 : no application for correction of the decree. It is also true that it will be necessary to have this correction made to the decree if in fact it was a mistake. 3. However, at this stage I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as admittedly the tenants of the building have vacated the same and are to be accommodated in the newly reconstructed building on the suit plot. Even if the building was still standing and even assuming that the Appellant had any rights on the land on which it was standing, the Appellant would have had to adopt proceedings for evicting them. Thus it is clear that no orders whatsoever can be passed against the tenants of the building who are to be accommodated in the newly constructed building. 4. The construction has already commenced. There is no warrant for stopping the construction at this stage. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall however inform any third parties in whose favour they may seek a right in the remaining portion of the building and shall inform them of the pendency of the proceedings. 5. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order : 3 : is accordingly disposed of.