MMJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.422 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.544 OF 2001 Sadanand Krishna Madgaonkar ..Applicant Vs. Ratnamala Manjrekar & ors. ..Respondents Shri D. S. Mhaispurkar i/b Ms. Vaidehi Mahispurkar for the Applicant Mr. A.P. Rege for the Respondents CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATE : 26th APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard the submissions on behalf of the parties. It appears that pending the appeal, the applicant had applied to the Sawantwadi Municipal Council for separate drinking water pipe connection on the ground that if it is not provided, his family will suffer hardship for want of drinking water. At present, according to the applicant, he is using public water tap which is likely to be disconnected by the Sawantwadi Municipal Council. The applicant though is aware of the pendency of the present proceeding, is ready to furnish a written undertaking that the drinking water connection may be disconnected, subject to final order in the second appeal, or the water connection may continue for the benefit of the party in whose favour the final decree is passed. 2. The Civil Suit No.9 of 1984 was decreed on 31­8­1996 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sawantwadi, whereby defendant No.2 was directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.20,000/­. The said decree was challenged in first appeal before the District Judge, Sindhudurg, in RCA No.126 of 1996 and the same was decided by the Learned Additional District Judge on 13­7­2001 whereby the appeal was allowed. Thus, the judgment and order by the First Appellate Court is now under challenge in Second Appeal No.544 of 2001. 3. The learned Advocate for the respondents objects granting of the application on the ground that the applicant has another house about 150 ft. away where he resides most of the time and that house has separate water connection and there is a also a well about 50 feet to 60 feet away from the suit property from which the water may be drawn. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant disputed this contention in the reply on the ground that the property, which is alleged as house, is 300 feet away from the present suit premises and it is used as a shop and not as a house. Furthermore, the applicant is not agreeable to use the water from the well as drinking water. 5. Although, the second appeal is pending, I think on humanitarian ground the applicant has not to be deprived of potable drinking water pipe connection, if such connection can be provisionally granted by the Sawantwadi Municipal Council with least inconvenience and damage to the suit property. Furthermore, the applicant shall furnish a written undertaking that such drinking water connection will be taken from the Sawantwadi Municipal Council in accordance with law and subject to the final order which may be passed in the present second appeal. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow the application to enable the applicant to move the Sawantwadi Municipal Council with the requisite application, subject to furnishing a written undertaking as above. If such an application is made for drinking water pipe connection of the suit property, it may be allowed in accordance with law, subject to final order that will be passed in Second Appeal No.544 of 2001. 6. The civil application stands disposed of. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J.)