1 914.cas1358.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1358 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2011 Hirabai Vitthal Ingawale & Anr. ....Applicants. Vs. Hanmant Laxman Jagdale & ors. ....Respondents Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, a/w. Mr. Gautam Kamble i/b. Mr. G.T. Kanchanpurkar, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Dhananjay Ranaware, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- OCTOBER 18, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Ranaware, Advocate for Respondent No.1. By separate order passed today, I have issued notice before admission for the limited purpose as indicated therein. By this Civil Application, two prayers are made. Prayer clause (a) is for stay whereas the prayer clause (b) is for injunction. 2. The Appellants are the original Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. They had never applied for any injunction. There was no counter claim and hence 2 914.cas1358.11 they cannot get any injunction in this proceeding since the relief which is sought by prayer clause (b) cannot be said to be an interim relief in the aid of the final relief which can be granted in the Suit. Hence, prayer (b) is rejected. 3. In so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, I have already indicated that finding regarding fraudulent Decree being obtained from the Civil Court is upheld and only for the limited purpose notice has been issued. During the pendency of the Trial interim injunction operated in favour of the Plaintiffs. In view of this, no case for grant of prayer clause (a) is made out. Prayer clause (a) is also rejected. Consequently the Civil Application is dismissed. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)