1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5386 of 2008 Purshottam Mahabirprasad Rungta .. Petitioner versus Sardar S.C. Angre & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.K.R. Belose i/b M/s.Sarwankar & Co. for the petitioner. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 24th July 2008 P.C.: 1. Having gone through the judgement of the court below, I am in agreement with the opinion recorded by the court below that the nature of work which is undertaken by the petitioner could not have been commenced without prior permission and authority in that behalf. Counsel for the petitioner contends that prior permission from Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia was obtained. The court below has considered that 2 aspect in paragraph no.9 of the judgement at page 46 of the paper book. In my opinion, the court below has rightly discarded that argument for two reasons. Firstly, there was a dispute between the trustees and Change Report of plaintiff trustees was pending before the Charity Commissioner. In other words, whether Jyotiraditya Scindia is the landlord or competent to give such permission itself was doubtful. Besides, the court below has found that the letter requesting for the stated permission sent by the petitioner did not specify the nature of repairs to be undertaken. There was no mention in the said letter of the fact that the flooring was to be changed. Assuming that Shri Jyotiraditya Scindia had authority to give permission to the petitioner, the letter dated 20th March 2006 cannot be construed to mean that this permission to change the flooring was granted as such. For the time being, during the pendency of the suit, the opinion recorded by the court below on the above basis, being a possible view, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted against the discretionary and interlocutory order passed by the lower court. Hence, this petition is dismissed. 2. Having regard to the nature of dispute it is appropriate that the main suit itself is decided 3 expeditiously by the Small Causes Court at Bombay. The petitioners may apply to the trial Judge for expeditious hearing of the suit which application be disposed of on its own merits. Needless to observe that the opinion recorded in the impugned judgement or for that matter in the present order should not influence the trial court in deciding the main controversy in the suit on its own merits. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)