:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.651 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.651 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.651 OF 2008 IN IN IN SECOND APPEAL NO.1242 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.1242 OF 200 SECOND APPEAL NO.1242 OF 2005 Shri Nandkumar Vinayak Rao ...Applicant. v. Shri Divakar Moreshwar Mulay & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.V.Palsuledesai , adv. for the Applicant. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 12th September, 2008. DATE: 12th September, 2008. DATE: 12th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. None for the respondents though served. No reply is filed by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who is the plaintiff/appellant. Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff is already admitted. The plaintiff had filed the suit for possession of the property. Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the property while the defendants claim that irrevocable power of attorney is executed in their favour by the applicant treating them as licensees. The trial Court had decreed the suit and that decree was set aside by the appellate Court. The Appellate Court appears to have given some conflicting facts about the issue nos.2 and 4, particularly about the ownership and authority of the defendants as licensees. In view of these circumstances, it will be necessary to protect the property pending the second appeal. :2: 2. Therefore, interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a). (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)