-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 574 OF 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION N0. 692 OF 2009 Kundapur Nagraj Mahable Shet ... Appellant veersus Gulambhai Gheewala and others ...Respondents Mr. Rajesh Singh for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Menon for respondent No.1. Mr. J.J. Xavier for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR,J. DATE: NOVEMBER 09, 2009. P.C. The appellant is the original plaintiff of Suit No. 310 of 2009. The said suit was filed seeking injunction to the effect that defendant No.1 be restrained from causing obstruction or interference to the access and ingress and egress of the plaintiff. It is the case of the appellant that he is the owner of shop No. 216 situated on the second floor of Bombay Market Apartment, Tardeo Road, Bombay. Defendant No.1 is the owner of number of premises on the second floor of the said building. The grievance of the plaintiff is in connection with office premises No. 210 owned by defendant No.1 which is exactly opposite to the shop of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 is the co-operative society formed by the premises owners/holders of the premises. -2- 2. The grievance of the plaintiff is that by opening the concerned door which is just opposite to his shop, his customers will have to face inconvenience and it may result into nuisance. The learned trial Judge has considered the undertaking given by defendant No.1 to the effect that while putting the door, defendant No.1 will not put up a commode in “Z” portion and that the additional door will be opening inside. On the basis of the undertaking, the learned Judge found that it will not cause any nuisance to the plaintiff and his customers. In my view, if there is any breach of undertaking given by defendant No.1, it is always open to the plaintiff to take appropriate proceedings in that behalf. In view of the above, in my view, the order passed by the learned trial Judge is not required to be interfered with in this appeal. 3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 that today the employees of defendant No.1 are getting benefit of toilet facilities and if at this stage they are restrained from using the same, it will create difficulty to his office staff. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has preferred another Notice of Motion on the ground that the door constructed is opening outside. So far as this aspect is concerned, this Court is not required to express any opinion on the same as it is for the concerned Judge to decide the same in accordance with law. 4. As far as the present impugned order is concerned, no interference -3- of this Court at this stage is called for. Hence Appeal from Order and the Notice of Motion are accordingly dismissed. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.