-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1182 OF 2008 Brig (Retd) Asil Singh : Petitioner (Orig.Plaintiff) V/s. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. : Respondents (Orig. Defendants) ... Brig (Retd.) Asil Singh, petitioner in person. Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for the respondents. ... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : APRIL 02, 2008. P.C. Heard the party in person. 2. The impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division (P.M.C.), rejecting the application at exh.15 filed in Regular Civil Suit no.105/2007 states that the status quo order passed on 17.1.2007 was denied to have been served and, in the meanwhile, the grills put up by the petitioner to the flat came to be removed by the officers of the Pune Municipal Corporation. The relief of -: 2 :- direction to re-fix the grills as claimed in exh.15 will be the final relief which can be considered after the parties lead evidence. The trial Court may have to consider the main issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to fix the grills to the balcony of the flat, as per the rules and if this issue is answered in the affirmative during the trial of the suit on the basis of evidence, then only the trial Court will have the power to direct re-fixing the grills or reimbursing the cost of re-fixing the grills. 3. The petitioner then pointed out that his flat is located on the 1st floor and the subject balcony is on the height of 8 to 10 feet from the ground level, thereby he has a strong apprehension on the security aspects. He has drawn my attention to the photographs annexed to the petition and it is noticed that the grills which were demolished were projecting outside the building to the extent of more than 2 feet and it was a box-type grill. Having regard to the security aspects, there will be no difficulty in re-fixing the grills, provided they are wall to wall and do not project outside the balcony. Such an option was offered to the petitioner, subject however, to the outcome of the pending suit, but he insisted that the original grills must be restored/re-fixed, pending the suit. The trial Court has rightly refused such a relief -: 3 :- by rejecting the application at exh.15. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petition stands rejected summarily. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.