- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) These appeals have been preferred from two orders passed by the High Court rejecting two separate applications, filed by the appellant before us, for review of the orders of the High Court. What was sought to be reviewed was an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 3.8.2000 disposing of an appeal filed by Respondent 1 from an interlocutory order in a pending writ petition and an order dated 2.3.2001 holding that the appellant had violated the order dated 3.8.2000. It may be indicated at this stage that the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 is still pending.
(3.) The dispute in the writ petition relates to certain constructions being made by the appellant. Respondent 1's allegation in the writ petition is that the constructions were being carried out in a manner which affected his rights as an adjacent owner. The Single Judge had not granted any interim relief. The Division Bench disposed of Respondent 1's appeal by the order dated 3.8.2000. The order dated 3.8.2000 appears to have held that (1) a disputed question of fact had been raised which could not be gone into by the Court; (2) the Single Judge's order had safeguarded the interest of the parties; (3) the appellant was entitled to make construction as per the approved plan; and (4) the appellant could not take advantage of the permission granted by the Court to make any construction which was in "variation or violation of the Rules and cannot seek ratification for that". It was, therefore, directed that the appellant should construct "as per rule" provided that it furnished an undertaking to the effect that if any construction was found in variation or in violation against "the sanctioned plan", it would demolish the same. The appellant was directed to furnish an undertaking to the Chennai Municipal Development Authority (CMDA) and upon furnishing such undertaking it could proceed with the construction "as per the approved plan".;