{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.112 OF 2008 Venkatrao Madhavrao Batalkar APPLICANT VERSUS Parasram Wachu Jadhav & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for applicant Mr. P.D.Bachate, Advocate for respondent No.1 CRA already dismissed against respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29 th March 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this civil revision application, u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the applicant, original plaintiff, has challenged the order dated 28.03.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.116/2001. 2. Few facts, which gave rise to file the present Civil Revision Application, can be summarized thus - The applicant, original plaintiff, has filed suit for perpetual {2} injunction bearing Regular Civil Suit No.64/1996. In the said suit an application, seeking temporary injunction, was moved. It appears that the said application was granted. It further appears that the suit came to be finally decided on 14.07.1999 and the decree for perpetual injunction was rejected by the trial court. At that time, an application, under Order 41 (5) (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, for stay to the execution of the decree, was moved. Accordingly, stay was granted by the trial court till the appeal period is over. It is alleged that within mean time, the present respondents, original defendants, have removed tin sheets from the suit premises. Therefore, according to the applicant, plaintiff, there is breach / disobedience of the order of Stay to the execution of the decree. Hence, the Miscellaneous Civil Application was moved before the lower court under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code. The said application came to be rejected vide order 14.08.2001. Misc. Civil appeal was preferred challenging the same order but rejected on 28.03.2008, which is impugned in the present civil revision application. 3. It is urged that the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the applicant was continued during the pendency of the suit. The order of temporary injunction was continued during the appeal period. 4. Legal position is very clear on this aspect that once the suit is dismissed, all the interim orders passed therein stand {3} vacated automatically, by virtue of decree passed by the trial court. It is not disputed that the suit for perpetual injunction, filed by the applicant, came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 14.07.1999, means the effect of the order of temporary injunction filed by the applicant came to an end. In this light, prayer of the applicant, before the trial court, requires to be considered. The applicant has moved the trial court for stay to the execution of the decree and interim injunction granted was continued till the appeal period is over. Order 41 (5) (2) of the Civil Procedure Code reads thus - “Stay by Court which passed the decree – Where an application is made for stay of execution of an appealable decree before the expiration of of the time allowed for appealing therefrom, the Court which passed the decree may on sufficient cause being shown order the execution to be stayed.” 5. Thus, it is clear that what is stayed as per the prayer of the applicant is stay to the execution of decree, which decree itself is not executable as it was in the form of perpetual injunction, wherein the suit was dismissed. Then stay to the decree to the payment of cost, However, what is alleged under the application is that after stay to the execution of the decree, some tin sheets are removed. If it is so, then it cannot be termed as disobedience of the order of the Court, which is punishable under Rule 2 (A) of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. As such, Misc. Civil appeal was rightly rejected by the first appellate court which does not require {4} any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, the civil revision application, which is sans merits, stands rejected in liminie. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/cra112-08