JUDGEMENT :- There is a rectangular plot of land abutted on two sides by road on the south by B.J. Road and on the east Gram Panchayat Road. It measures 1895 Sq. Yards. Small plots of land, thirteen in number, were given to various persons by the owner who have built small shops of about nine feet high and they have been running the shops. The owner says they re licensees while the occupants say they are tenants. The Municipal Corporation and the owner say that the constructions are unauthorised and the former has issued notice for demolition. The owner wants to develop the plot and wants to build a multi-storeyed building. She offered the occupants accommodation in the building but they are not satisfied with what was offered and she had to file suits in the Small Cause Court for eviction which art pending.

2. In the meantime she got the plans sanctioned on June 19, 1965. She had collected funds and materials ready. But as the occupants of the shops refused to vacate, to save time, she approached the Corporation for permission to build a part of proposed building to which the corporation gave sanction on June 11, 1966.

3. The two appellants filed suits against her and the Corporation for injunction restraining the (construction of ?) building on the ground that the construction violates the building bye-laws. The bye-laws alleged to be violated are : (1) that there should be distance of not less than 30 ft. between the two buildings and (2) on an average there should be a distance of about 50 ft. between the proposed construction and a public road. It may be stated that the property is situated at Goregaon. The plaintiffs do not allege that the construction affects them personally.

4. They applied for temporary injunction which the trial Court granted. The defendants appealed and Mr. Justice Palekar in an elaborate judgement allowed the appeal and discharged the Notice of Motion.

5. The first question is whether an appeal is competent. The word ''judgement" in Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent has by now acquired a definite meaning and it has been held that refusal of a judge to grant interim injunction not judgement as it does not decide any of the rights of the parties finally and therefore no appeal lies. See Vanichand v. Lakhimchand, 21 Bom LR 955 : (AIR 1920 Bom 309), Salemahomed v. Mahomed Taher, 59 Bom LR 1193 : (AIR 1958 Bom 210) and Gyangirji Narsingirji v. Raja Dhanrajgirji, AIR 1957 Bom 94 Mr. Advani relying upon Mansata Films Distributors v. Sorab Modi 57 Bom LR 228 at p. 234 : (AIR 1955 Bom 266 at P. 269) contended that an appeal will not lie where the order is made by a single Judge only in connection with a step in aid in the suit, but where the interlocutory order determines the right of a party pro tanto, the party affected has a right of appeal. In our view, the right affected must however be determined finally between the parties. When the question involved however is at large in the suit, it cannot be said that pro tanto the right is decided. In the present case, view expressed by the Court is merely to find out if the plaintiffs have a prima facie case and does not affect the merits of the suit.

6. Even on merits, the plaintiffs have not prima facie case. Similar question was considered by our High Court in Abdul 1st Bhagat v. Sultanalli Sulemanji, S.A. No. 859 of 1941, D/- 26-11-1942 (Bom) : Broomfield and Macklin, JJ. where Mr. Justice Broom-field cited with approval following observations of Mr. Justice Farwell in Mullis v. Hubbard, (1903) 2 Ch 431 :

"I have also heard arguments as to the general intent and meaning of the Public Health Acts, and it is said that I ought to find some intention to protect the individual next-door neighbour as distinct from the whole body of corporators of the borough or the whole of the inhabitants of the particular district. In my opinion, that is not the true view. If the next door neighbour has any common law rights, they are left untouched and he can assert them. If he has no co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document