1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5786 OF 2009 Arun Dnyanoba Valekar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Vishwanath Dayaram Valekar & Ors.. Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodake for the petitioners. Mr.R.V.Bansode for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12 th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession. A temporary injunction was claimed by the petitioners restraining the concerned respondents from carrying out construction on the suit property. The trial Court rejected the application made by the petitioners and in an appeal said order has been confirmed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 st to 2 4 th respondents on instruction of the said respondents states that the said respondents are re-constructing the house at the place where the old house was situated. He states that respondent no.4 is personally present in the Court. He states that construction of the ground floor is already over and construction of the first floor is going on. He has placed on record photographs of the said construction. He states that the said respondents intend to construct only the first floor of the structure and no further construction will be carried out till the disposal of the suit. He states that even if construction is completed, the said respondents will not create any third party interests in respect of the said structure till the disposal of the suit. The statements are accepted. 3. The aforesaid statements sufficiently protect the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the concerned respondents will claim equity on the ground that they have been permitted to carry out construction. The said apprehension has no basis. 3 The concerned respondents are carrying out construction with the full knowledge of pendency of the suit and it is, therefore, obvious that they will not be entitled to claim any equity on the basis of the re-construction of house during the pendency of the suit. The construction is naturally subject to final outcome of the suit. 4. Subject to what is stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. 5. It is made clear that observations made by the Courts below in the impugned order are tentative findings and the suit will be decided on its own merits. Hearing of the suit is expedited. (A.S.OKA,J)