(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court permitting construction of the second floor, by modification of 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. 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 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.