1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4507 OF 2006 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.80 OF 2001 Shapur N. Gharda since deceased through legal heir Mehroo G. Udyawar ..Applicant versus Adi K. Dhondy & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar for the applicant Mr.Jokim Rais for the respondents CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. This Civil Application is filed for modification of the order dated 29.1.2001 passed in Civil Application No.360 of 2001. It is noted that by order dated 29.1.2001, by consent arrangements were arrived at as to how the flat in question shall be used, in as much as one room was to be in possession of the respondent No.1 and he was permitted to use the living room in common. Now 2 the applicant i.e. Mrs.M.J.Udyawar wants modification of this order. 2. I have heard learned advocates on both the sides. A perusal of the application indicates that the applicant is apprehending many things which may happen in future. It is to be noted that this application was filed in September 2006. In this application no specific instances are quoted so as to say that in order to work out order dated 29.1.2001 there is inconvenience or embarasment to a particular party. In the absence of the appropriate instances, in my view it will not be proper to proceed for modification of the order as desired by the present applicant. 3. Hence on the basis of text of this application the relief sought by the applicant cannot be granted. 4. In future if the applicant wants modification of the order dated 29.1.2009 it will be necessary for the applicant to make out case in that behalf by 3 setting out specific instances and specific reasons as to why the modification is sought. I am saying this because Order dated 29.1.2009 was passed on the basis of the text of the minutes of the order which were tendered before the court by both the sides. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs. However liberty as set out in the body of this order is granted to the applicant. No views are expressed on merits whether such modifications can be done or otherwise. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.410 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.80 OF 2001 Adi K. Dhondy ..Applicant versus Mehroo G. Udyawar ..Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar for the respondent Mr.Jokim Rais for the applicant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Rais upon instructions states that in view of Order dated 1.8.2009 passed in contempt petition No.12 of 2007, the applicant is not pressing this application. 2. Statement is recorded. In view of this application is allowed to be withdrawn in view of the order dated 1.8.2007 passed in Contempt Petition No.12 of 2007. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) 5