Krishna S Dixit, J
1. This petition seeks to lay a challenge to the concurrent orders passed on plaintiffs’ applications. Therefore, learned trial Judge rejected the
application and against that, appeal was preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that also met the same fate.
Ordinarily, in concurrent orders of the kind, a very limited supervisory jurisdiction vested u/a 227 of the Constitution is not invocable, unless an
extraordinary case is made out which is not so made out in this case.
2. However, any other peripheral remedy is required such as the leave for plastering of structure, etc., it is open to the petitioner to make an
appropriate application to the court below and the same shall be considered expeditiously without being much influenced by the impugned orders and
subject to reasonable conditions.
In view of the above, the Petition is rejected
All pending applications pale into insignificance.
