SRJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.650 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.1242 OF 2005 Diwakar M.Mulay & Another .. Applicants (Org. Respondent Nos.1 & 2) V/s. Shri Nandkumar V.Deo & Others .. Respondents (Org. Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Org.Resp.Nos. 3 to 5. Shri S.V.Palsuldesai, for Applicants. Shri Girish Godbole, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: R.V.MORE,J. DATED: 21st JUNE, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This Civil Application is taken out by Applicant/ Original Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for permission to carry out necessary repair works like plastering, colouring, re-flooring of the sinking floor/ leveling of SRJ 2 the floor of the suit block. 3. The Respondent No.1 and predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 had filed a suit for declaration and possession. Suit was decreed by the Trial Court. The counter claim filed by the Applicants was, however, dismissed. The lower appellate Court at the instance of the Applicants dismissed Respondent s suit and allowed their counter claim by a judgment and decree, which is impugned in above Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is admitted and interim stay is also granted in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application No.651 of 2008. 4. Mr. Godbole, Learned Counsel for the Respondents submit that he has no objection for maintaining the interim relief, restraining Applicants from parting with possession or inducting third party in the suit block. However, he has objected the interim injunction, restraining Applicants from carrying out any work or construction and/or alteration or addition in the suit property. He submitted that the suit block needs urgent repairing works in as much as the roof, walls and flooring of the suit block has been damaged in the recent monsoon. He has annexed photographs of the suit block at page nos. 9 to 19 to support his contentions. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants opposes the same and submits that if relief claimed in Civil SRJ 3 Application is granted, same will damage the suit block. He also submits that the repairs are really not necessary. 7. After hearing the learned counsel, I find merit in the Civil Application. Perusal of the photographs annexed to the Application, supports Applicants contention that the repairs in the suit block are necessary. Respondents cannot have any prejudice, if the applicant is allowed to repair suit block in terms of prayer clause (a). In view of that, Civil Application is disposed of by passing following order:- (i) Applicants are granted permission to carry out repair works of plastering, colouring, re-flooring of the sinking floor/ leveling of the floor of the suit block i.e. Southern side block situated in plot no.41/17 of Karvenagar Co-operative Housing Society, Sayadri Chowk, Pune. Applicants, however, will not claim equity in respect of the repair works done; (ii) Applicants undertake that while carrying out the repairs of the suit block, he will not damage the suit block or the building. SRJ 4 (iii) The order dated 12th September, 2009 passed in Civil Application No.651 of 2008 is modified to above extent. (R.V.MORE,J.) SRJ 5