1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3202 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 2441 OF 2005. Ashok K. Shah & Anr. ..Plaintiffs. v/s. Suresh Bhailal Patel & Ors. ..Defendants. .... Mr. Sameer R. Bhalekar, for Plaintiffs. Mr. Rupesh Kanchwala, i/b. Mustafa Motiwala, for Defendant No.1. Mr. Ranjit Dharmadhikari, i/b. I.C. Legal, for Defendant Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. Asif Memon, i/b. S.R. Saudagar, for Defendant Nos. 4 & 5. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER 2009. P.C. By the above suit, the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the plaintiff no . 1 is entitled to stilt car parking space no.2 situated at plot no.58, J.V.P.D. Scheme, 12th North South Road, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai and that the plaintiff no.2 is entitled to open car parking space on the same plot. By a detailed order dated 16th April 2007 of this Court [Coram : D.K. Deshmukh, J.] in notice of motion no.2626 of 2005, the plaintiffs are allowed to use car parking space nos. 2 and 18. 2. The plaintiffs have now taken out the present notice of motion seeking injunction against the defendants restraining the plaintiffs from installing the Close Circuit TV camera in garage / parking space nos. 2 and 18. Admittedly, the building at plot no.58 2 at J.V.P.D. scheme, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, is occupied by only four families having two flats each. The plaintiffs are having serious disputes with some of the defendants, more particularly, the family of defendant no.6, and various legal proceedings are pending between the parties. 3. According to the plaintiffs, despite getting the order of this Court allowing them to use the garage /car parking nos. 2 and 18 under the stilt, the plaintiffs are harassed by the other co-owners, more particularly, defendant no.6. The plaintiffs had therefore, appointed their own security. However, the said security would have fights with the other security agencies appointed by the co-owners. The said security guards appointed by the co-owners would cause harassment to the plaintiffs and his family members by not opening the gates for a long time, etc. The plaintiff no.1 who is a professional, is required to travel a lot and for the purpose of the security of his wife and two grown-up daughters and his son, desires to install Close Circuit TV camera in the garage / parking space nos. 2 and 18 at his cost. The learned Advocate for defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 states that they have no objection if this order is passed. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 4 and 5 objects to the extent that the entry of the visitors in the flats of defendant nos. 4 and 5 should not be projected on the Close Circuit TV camera. The said objection is reasonable. 3 4. Defendant no.6 is not present. Defendant no.6 has filed an affidavit stating that the intention of the plaintiffs to install Close Circuit TV camera is malafide. I see no malafides if the plaintiffs installs Close Circuit TV camera in the garages / parking space of the plaintiffs at their costs. Instead such Close Circuit TV cameras, shall record/ project any mischief played or violence indulged in by any individual in the garages/ car parkings of the plaintiffs, which according to the plaintiffs has allegedly taken place in the past, in view of the animosity between the plaintiffs and the defendants, more particularly, defendant no.6. 5. In view thereof, notice of motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), with a clarification that the entry of the visitors into the flats of the defendants shall not be projected on the Close Circuit TV camera. 6. Notice of motion is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]