-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 778 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2523 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 1854 OF 2007 Muriel Edward D'mello ... Appellants versus Austin Jerome Rodrigues and others ... Respondents Mr. A.C. Singh, instructed by Mr. D.R. Shah, for the appellants. Ms. Eventa Gonsalves for respondent No.1. S.S. Jinsiwal for respondet Nos. 2, 3 and 4. CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & P.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATE: JUNE 04, 2008. P.C. Heard. Considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed as an ad-interim measure during the pendency of the hearing of the Notice of Motion and the relief granted is merely in the nature of direction to maintain status quo, it does not call for interference in Appeal. 2. The contention on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiffs may take advantage of the permission granted under the impugned order to -2- construct the boundary wall is devoid of substabnce. It is needless to say that such permission is without prejudice to the rights of the parties and in case the appellants succeed in the Notice of Motion before the learned single Judge, nothing prevents the appellants from inviting appropriate orders in relation to the walls to be constructed by the plaintiffs pursuant to the impugned order. Needless to say also that the Notice of Motion is to be disposed of without being influenced in any manner by the findings given in the impugned order. 3. With these clarifications, the appeal is disposed of. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.