1 caf248-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CIVIL APPLICATION NO.248 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.142 OF 2011 Imtiyaz Ahmed Shaukatali .. Applicant V/s. Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Mr. C. K. Tripathi for the applicant. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 25, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that though there is no interim relief granted during the pendency of the suit, in view of the material which is brought on record during trial, the applicant is entitled to grant of interim relief. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has established that the shop premises is on the municipal land and, therefore, wall cannot be allowed to be 2 caf248-11 constructed in front of the shop premises as the same will have the result of completely closing the business of the applicant. 2. I have considered the submission. It is not in dispute that even during the pendency of the suit there was no interim relief granted in favour of the applicant-plaintiff. Now the suit has been dismissed by the impugned decree. The Railway has started construction of a compound wall in terms of an order passed in writ petition No.2405 of 2001 passed by Division Bench of this Court. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the direction of the Division Bench issued to the Railways was to construct a compound wall on both the sides of the track wherever it is possible and therefore, the said direction is not applicable in the present case as there is a public road in front of the shop premises of the applicant. 3. As the applicant was never protected during the pendency of the suit and as the suit is dismissed, no case is made out for grant of interim relief. However, it will be open for the applicant to make a representation to the Railways so as to ensure that his business is not affected. It will be also open for the applicant to seek appropriate clarification from the Division Bench as it is sought to be contended that 3 caf248-11 the wall is required to be constructed as per the directions of the Division Bench. Subject to what is observed above, the application is rejected. 4. Ad-interim relief of status-quo will continue to operate for six weeks from today. JUDGE