[2009) 3 S.C.R. 336
A
PEDDI ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
v.
..
PEDDI SUDARSHAN RAO
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1143-44 of 2009)
B
FEBRUARY 20, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASHOK KUMAR
GANGUL Y, JJ.)
Interim Order:
c
Partition suit - Preliminary decree - Appeal before High
Court - Interim order maintaining status quo - Modified by
High Court permitting respondent to raise construction of
second floor - HELD: Merely because there was some
D purported inconvenience indicated by respondent, that could
-
not have been a ground to permit construction of second floor
- Order of High Court set aside - Parties to maintain status
quo till disposal of matter by High Court.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1143-1144/09
Form the Judgement & Order dated 20.10.08 of the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Sccundcrabad (AP.),
-
in CCCA MP No.111 of 2007 and CCCA MP. 671 of 2006.
F
Dharam Bir Raj Vohra and S.K. Sabharwal far the
Appellants.
'tc
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
..
-~
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
H
336
-
~
PEDDI ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. v. PEDDI SUDARSHAN 337
RAO
permitting construction of the second floor, by modification of
A
the interim order dated 3.11.2006, by which status quo was
directed to be maintained. The High Court felt that there was
no material to show that the building will not withstand the
second floor and that there was inconvenience on the part of
the applicant before the High Court to accommodate his sons.
B
The High Court in the aforesaid premises modified the interim
order dated 3.11.2006 and permitted construction of the
second floor.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the c
correctness of the impugned order. There was no material
before the High Court to show that any plan had been submitted
or there was any sanction to construct the second floor.
:'
Specific stand was taken that the building would not withstand
raising of the second floor. The High Court felt that it was for
D
the appellant before the High Court to show that the building
withstand the second floor. No material was placed by the
applicant before the High Court to show that either there was
any sanction for construction of the second floor or that the
factual situation was that construction of the second floor would
not cause damage to the building. Merely because there was
E
some purported inconvenience indicated by the applicant that
....
could not have been ground to permit construction of the
second floor.
4. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order
F
of the High Court dated 20.10.2008 and direct that status quo
as was earlier directed by the order dated 3.11.2006 shall
continue to be operative till disposal of the matter by the High
Court.
_..,,..
•
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
G
RP
Appeal disposed of.
Lex