mca393.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 393/2010 in S. A. No. 386/2008 (decided) Nagrik Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd...vs.Smt. Sitabai wd/o Kamaji Kaphanichor & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Ms. Shinde, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Muley, Advocate for non applicant nos. 2 to 5. Mr. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for non applicant no.11. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : May 3, 2010 1. This Court had rejected Second Appeal No.386/2008 by judgment and order dated 03.03.2010. It was made clear that it shall be open for the parties to institute the proceedings claiming ownership of the property along with consequential benefits and none of the observations made by Courts below regarding the ownership of the suit property shall come in the way of the parties in the proceedings, if any, are instituted. Thereafter, by order dated 19.03.2010, this Court granted four weeks' time to the applicant to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter mca393.10.odt 2 and it was directed that in the meanwhile, the non applicants shall not create any third party interest in the property. 2. This Court, by order dated 13.04.2010, rejected the review application. However, so far as the prayer for extension of time to approach the Apex Court and to continue the interim order passed by this Court on 19.03.2010 is concerned, notice was issued to the respondents. 3. Mr. Muley, the learned counsel for non applicant nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for non applicant no.11 oppose the prayer for extension of time and continuation of interim order. It is the contention of the non applicants that it is not made clear by the applicant as to whether they want to prefer proceedings before the Civil Court or to approach the Apex Court. Ms. Shinde, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that she has advised the applicant to file appropriate proceeding in the lower Court. However, it appears that till this date, applicant has neither moved the lower Court nor the Apex Court. A period of four weeks granted by this Court on 19.03.2010 has already expired. mca393.10.odt 3 4. Keeping in view the fact that the judgment of this Court was delivered on 03.03.2010, the extension of time was granted on 19.03.2010 and the fact that no proceedings are filed till this date by the applicant, no case is made out for extension of time or for continuation of the interim order. Hence, the prayer for continuation of interim relief and extension of time is rejected. The Misc. C. A. stands disposed of accordingly. J UDGE kahale