1a. caf 961-11 & 21.doc FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 961 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1488 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 768 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1489 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1490 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1491 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1492 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1493 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 772 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1494 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1495 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 774 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1496 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1497 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 776 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1499 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 777 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1500 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 778 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1501 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 779 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1502 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 780 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1503 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1505 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 782 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1506 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 783 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1507 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1508 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 785 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1510 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1512 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 789 OF 2011 Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court,s order or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr. Vineet Naik a/w Mr. I.J. Nankani i/b M/s. Nankani & Associates for the Applicants Mr. J.M. Patil for Respondent No. 1 Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel a/w. Mr. Birendra Saraf & Mr. Bhavik Manek i/b Wadia Gandhi & Co for Respondent No. 2 Mr. Hira Gummola for Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 CORAM: A.S. OKA, J DATED: 8th JULY, 2011 1 1a. caf 961-11 & 21.doc P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned senior counsel for the second respondent (first defendant). 2. These applications have been filed by the appellants. The challenge in these appeals is to the decree passed in Interpleader Suit filed by the persons claiming to be the tenants of the property. By the impugned decree, the first defendant (second respondent in these applications) has been declared as the owner of the suit property on the basis of Sale Deed dated 9th October 1994. It is not in dispute that against the tenants, the second respondent (first defendant) has filed eviction suits in the Court of Small Causes and the decrees have been passed in the said suit. 3. The first prayer in the Civil Application is for stay to the decree of declaration passed by 2 1a. caf 961-11 & 21.doc the trial Court in Interpleader Suit. The second prayer is for restraining the second respondent (original first defendant) from exercising any rights as owners of the suit property. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the second respondent (first defendant) on instructions states that as of today, the second respondent has no intention of creating any third party rights in respect of the suit property. He further states that as and when the second respondent decides to create third party rights, prior intimation in writing thereof will be given to the applicants or to their advocate on record. The statement is accepted. This statement, at this stage, sufficiently protects the applicants. Therefore, as of today, it is not necessary to grant any interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). 5. As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, it is 3 1a. caf 961-11 & 21.doc a prayer directing the second respondent to restore the status quo ante. Considering the facts of the case, mandatory relief of this nature cannot be granted at this stage. The first prayer is for stay of declaration of ownership. There is no reason to stay the operation of declaratory decree of declaration of ownership granted on the basis of the Sale Deed. 6. Hence, the applications are disposed of by passing the following order: i. Prayer (a) for stay is rejected. ii. Prayer (c) is also rejected. iii. As far as prayer (b) is concerned, in view of the statement made by the learned senior counsel for the second respondent, it is not necessary to consider the prayer at this stage. In the event, notice as stated above is given by the second respondent (first defendant), it will be open for the applicants to take out a fresh 4 1a. caf 961-11 & 21.doc application for claiming interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). It is obvious that the statement made by the second respondent is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the second respondent in the Appeal. All contentions of parties in such fresh Application are kept open. 7. Civil applications are disposed of on above terms. [ A.S. OKA, J.] 5