5Our attention is invited to the letter dated
6th November 2015 addressed by the Assistant Engineer
(B and F), A ward to the said Architects as well as
to the fourth respondent. The subject matter of the
letter is providing propping at ground floor first
floor, second floor and upper floor of the said
building. In the said letter, a reference is made
to the earlier letter dated 12th May 2015 issued by
the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to the
Architects and to the owner directing them to prop
the building and barricades the surrounding area to
avoid untoward incident. This work was to be done
under the supervision of a Structural Engineer. The
learned counsel for the fourth respondent on
instructions states that it is not in dispute that
though Shri Patankar, the Structural Engineer was
appointed by the said respondent, he has not
supervised the work of propping. Even the order
dated 18thJanuary 2016 passed by this Court
specifically directs the Court Receiver to appoint a
Structural Engineer and to carry out the work of
propping of first, second and third floors of the
building under the supervision of the Structural
Engineer. Admittedly, the said work was carried out
at the instance of the fourth respondent.
Therefore, we reject the contention of the fourth
respondent that the said respondent is not liable to
