1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.858 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.858 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.858 OF 2004 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.463 OF APPEAL NO.463 OF APPEAL NO.463 OF 2001 2001 2001 R.S.Khajekar ...Appellant Vs. Daattoba Rambhau Harpude ...Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: JANUARY 13, 2005. JANUARY 13, 2005. JANUARY 13, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Lagu for the Applicant. The Decree passed by the Trial Court is for removal of construction made by the Appellant over vacant site admeasuring 30" x 20". There is also decree of injunction passed against the Appellant restraining the Appellant from obstructing the possession of the Respondent over the hut of area of 15" x 8" allotted to him under Photo pass by the local authority. Considering the facts and circumstaances, I am not inclined to grant stay to execution of decree of permanent injunction. 2. Rule. There will be stay of execution of only that part of the decree by which construction made by the Appellant over vacant site admeasuring 30" x 20" is ordered to be demolished. It is made clear that that part of the decree by which perpetual injunction is granted is not stayed. The Appellant is restrained from creating any third party interest in respect of the structure in respect of which decree of demolition is passed. Judge. Judge. Judge.