1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 234 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 312 OF 2010 Sindubai Krishna Bakle & Ors. ... Appellants (Orig.Plaintiffs) Vs. Baliram Bhikusa Bakle &Ors. ... Respondents (Org. Defendants) Mr. Ajay S. Patil, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to r. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 15th March , 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiffs/appellants claim that the suit property is the joint property of the plaintiffs and the defendants, while respondent Nos. 1 to 4 claim that the suit property has been bequeathed to them under a Will. The Will is not proved. The impugned order passed by the trial Court reveals that the Court had made spot inspection and directed to construct a particular wall under the 2 supervision of the Court Commissioner. That wall has been constructed. The contention of the appellants is that the respondents under the garb of that order obtained permission from the Municipal Council to make construction of another wall also and that was objected by the plaintiffs. The work is not yet completed. 3. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice :- The defendants/respondents shall not make any further construction inspite of permission from the Municipal Council, without obtaining necessary permission from the trial Court, pending the suit. However, the defendants shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the trial Court for such a permission and if such an application is moved, the trial Court, after hearing the parties, shall pass appropriate orders. 5. The Appeal and the Civil Application stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)