vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.648 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.560 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.560 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.560 OF 2008 CVK & Associates & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ... Respondent And Shreyas alias Ashok Narayan Pathare ... Applicant Mr.J. Rayees for Appellants Ms.Geeta Jogalekar for Respondent Mr.Niranjan Pandit with Ms.Ashwini Rupji for Intervenor CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 18, 2008 JULY 18, 2008 JULY 18, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Appellants, though served, are not represented. This application has been moved by a person who lives above the flat Nos.101, 102 and 103, He also claims to be a co-owner of the building "Shreyas". By an order dated 30.6.2008, this Court after hearing the appellants as well as the applicant in the matter had passed an order appointing the Court Commissioner to inspect the site in order to ascertain what was the condition of the suit premises. The officer of this Court was to take assistance of a photographer and the applicant was entitled to be present in the suit premises during such inspection alongwith the Court : 2 : Commissioner and an architect. It appears that the officer was named by the Registrar (Judicial). She informed the parties i.e., the appellant as well as the applicant that she would conduct the inspection on Saturday, the 12th July, 2008 at 10.15 am. This intimation was sent to the parties on 10.7.2008. On 11.7.2008, the appellant have informed the Registry of this Court that the inspection should be postponed to 19.7.2008 as the time for organising an architect and a photographer to remain present was too short. It appears that the inspection has now been postponed. Mr.Pandit, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, contends that the appellants have been carrying on with the work in the flat, irrespective of the order dated 30.6.2008. According to him, extensive work has been carried out by the appellant in the suit premises and not just furniture work as was permitted under clause 2 of the operative portion of the order dated 30.6.2008. 2. Nobody represents the appellants today despite service. In my opinion, therefore, the following order will meet the ends of justice: i) The appellants shall not carry out any work in the premises whether furniture or otherwise. ii) The Registrar (Judicial) shall appoint an : 3 : officer to inspect the premises as early as possible. The Officer named shall inspect the premises and submit a report to the Court by Friday, the 25th July, 2008. iii) The inspection shall be carried out in the presence of the appellants as well as the applicant and it should not be postponed for any reason. iv) The parties shall observe the order passed by Vazifdar, J. on 30.6.2008 in respect of clauses 1 and 3 to 7 of the operative part of the order. 3. S.O. to Friday, the 25.7.2008.