1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1362 OF 2010. Shivcharan Laxmanbapu Hatnagar -: VERSUS :- Harishchandra Laxmanbapu Hatnagar and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 04, 2010. Heard Shri S.S. Murthy, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri S.D. Khati, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Two suits are pending between brothers. Petitioner filed earlier suit bearing no.1207/2006 seeking declaration, permanent injunction and possession. He is seeking restoration of possession of the suit property which has fallen to his share, by removing the encroachment of defendants therein. It appears that brothers had earlier submitted a plan jointly signed for approval to the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority has issued notice under 2 Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, and that notice was been questioned by the respondents in Regular Civil Suit No.189/2007. They have joined only the notice issuing authority as party therein and petitioner has not been impleaded as party. In the suit they also stated that they have moved an application for revised sanction plan. In that suit, petitioner filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that application has been rejected. Shri Murthy, learned Counsel contends that in case the suit of respondents filed vide Regular Civil Suit No.189/2007 is decreed, petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. His contention is unauthorized construction made, shall stand regularized. I do not find any substance in the contention. Even if the alleged unauthorized construction is regularized by any revised sanction plan, the Planning Authority cannot permit the respondents to raise construction on the portion which has fallen to share of the present petitioner. The entitlement to that portion and restoration of its possession by removing encroachment is the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No. 1207/2006. If petitioner succeeds in that suit, any adjudication in Regular Civil Suit No.189/2007 cannot 3 derogate from their entitlement in that suit. I, therefore, find nothing wrong with the application of mind by the trial Court in the matter. Writ Petition is thus rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.