The appellant sought amendment of the plaint and inclusion of prayer to the effect that the respondent be directed to reconstruct the walls by order of mandatory injunction.
The said ditch was nearly 13.6 ft.
525 by two sale deeds dated 9th September, 1971 and 21st January, 1978, After purchasing the plot, the respondent demolished the RCC building existing over the property and started digging for basement for companystruction of a hotel.
447 of 2002 allowed the amendment.
Being aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant filed a Regular Civil Appeal No.
Finally, on 28th May, 1990, ex parte interim injunction was vacated.
The numberthern 11/16th portion of the suit property belonged to one Vinayak Patwardhan whereas the southern 5/16th share, on which the godown was companystructed belonged to one Ujjwal Lahoti.
By the Judgement and decree dated 30th August, 2002, learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.
In or about 1961 62, the appellant firm took the godown over the suit property on rent from Ujjwal Lahoti Since then the appellant has been companytinuously paying rent to Ujjwal Lahoti and storing its goods in the godown.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant moved an application for amendment of the plaint bringing on record that on 21st October, 1996, the respondent again pulled down some portion of the western wall of the godown and due to the damage caused to base of the property, during the rainy season the remaining walls also had companylapsed.
District Judge, Karad dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
Thus, the appellant was unable to keep its goods in or take out its goods from the suit property, causing irreparable loss to the appellant.
86 of 2002 before the learned Addl.
Later, on 4th May, 1990, the respondent purchased the remaining 5/16th share from Ujjwal Lahoti.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Misc.
It was alleged that the respondent thereafter went ahead with further destruction of the godown and demolished the western wall of the godown on 21st October, 1996.
211 of 1990.
109 of 2006 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
The appellant further prayed that it may be allowed to reconstruct the walls of the godown and the respondent should number be allowed to destroy or disturb the appellant from companystruction of the godown.
By its impugned judgement and decree dated 18th July, 2006, the High Court dismissed the second appeal on the ground that the tenancy right of the appellant had lapsed and numbersubstantial question of law was involved in the appeal.
During the rainy season, water got accumulated in the said ditch and the entire structure of godown was threatened.
The appellant was using the access on the eastern side of the godown for approaching the municipal road and in bringing its goods to the godown.
Against the judgement and decree of the Learned Additional District Judge, Karad, the appellant filed Second Appeal No.
The appellant further prayed that the respondent be restrained from digging in a manner which would cause damage to the godown.
211 of 1990 in the Court of IInd Jt.
It weakened the foundation of godown and subjected the entire structure of godown to the danger of companylapsing.
It is also alleged that the respondent also closed the access road to the suit property.
Therefore, according to the appellant, the excavation made by the respondent was intentional and directed towards terminating the tenancy of the appellant by adopting dubious methods.
District Judge, Karad.
On the numberthern portion of the suit property, there was one RCC building.
The appellant filed a Regular Civil Suit No.
The said appeal was also dismissed on 16th April, 1996.
The High Court by order dated 15th March, 2002 in Civil Revision No.
The case of the appellant is that the respondent had purchased 11/16th share of Vinayak Patwardhan in Plot No.
123 of 1990 before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Satara against the order passed in RCS No.
By its judgement and order dated 30th November, 2005, the learned Addl.
The respondent filed written statement and additional written statement in which one of the grounds was taken was that godown got demolished due to natural cause and number due to the acts of the respondent.
Civil Appeal No.
In the said suit, initially ad interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent from further digging the suit property.
The amendment sought for by the appellant was initially number allowed by the learned Civil Judge.
When the appellant inquired the respondent about the same, the respondent asked the appellant to vacate the godown.
The respondent also threatened the workers of the appellant.
Civil Judge, J.D. Karad, at Karad.
deep and exposed the entire base of the godown.
In the said civil suit, the appellant prayed that the respondent be restrained from closing the access of the appellant to the suit property from the municipal road.
Both questions were answered in the affirmative.
