1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10013 OF 2009 Avinash Sakharam Khambe & Anr. .. Petitioners versus Prakash Pandurang Khambe & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the petitioners. Mr.Vijay Mane for respondent No.1. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the respondent for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 1st February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The petitioners filed a suit against the respondents for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out construction on City Survey No.3310. A mandatory injunction is also prayed for directing demolition of certain portion of the construction allegedly carried out by the 1st respondent. In the said suit an application for temporary injunction was made restraining the 1st respondent from carrying out construction on the said City Survey No.3310. The trial Court rejected the application for interim injunction but directed the 1st respondent to file an undertaking to remove the construction made by him in the event it is proved at the time of final hearing of the suit that the construction has been carried out on the road. An appeal was preferred against the said order 2 which was dismissed. 2. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that it is the duty of the 2nd respondent (Chief Officer) to verify whether construction is being carried out on a road. He submitted that if construction is carried out in breach of the sanctioned plan, the 1st respondent will have to be restrained from carrying out construction. 3. I have considered the submissions. The Appellate Court has referred to the report filed by the 2nd respondent in which it is stated that no construction has been carried out by the 1st respondent on the road and in fact a notice has been served to the 1st respondent calling upon him not to make any construction on the road. The Appellate Court had noted the assurance of the 2nd respondent that in case the 1st respondent is found to be carrying on unauthorised construction on road, the 2nd respondent would take action. Moreover, the undertaking as directed by the trial Court has been already filed by the 1st respondent. 4. In view of the undertaking and in view of the stand taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have been adequately protected at this stage. In case any breach of undertaking is committed, the petitioners have remedies available. No case for interference is made out. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)