: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 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.109 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.109 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.109 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.139 OF 2008 M/s. Siddhivinayak Construction & Anr. ...Appellants. v. Durgabai Bhaskar Mhathre ...Respondent. Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar Sr.Counsel i/by M/s. Aarkey Legal , advs. for the Appellants. Mr.Murti i/by M/s. Murti & Associates , adv. for the Respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 4th March, 2008. DATE: 4th March, 2008. DATE: 4th March, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. In L.C.Suit No.1084 of 2004 pending before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, Bombay, preliminary issues have been raised and the matter is pending for about three years for decision of those preliminary issues. On 10-1-2008 on behalf of the defendant no.2, adjournment was sought for cross-examination of the defendant no.1 on preliminary issues. The learned trial Court observed that the matter of preliminary issues is itself pending for the last three years because of the defendants. Therefore, the learned trial Court granted adjournment on the condition that defendant nos.2 to 4 shall not create any third party interest in the suit :2: property and the flats till preliminary issues are finally decided. After hearing the parties and perusal of roznama, it is clear that this order was only because defendant nos.2 to 4 have been seeking adjournments after adjournments and because of that preliminary issues have not been decided so far. I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order. Mr.Jahagirdar the learned senior counsel for the defendant nos.2 to 4, who are the appellants before this Court, contends that once such order is passed, plaintiff may seek continuation of that order till disposal of the suit. In my opinion, this apprehension is not well founded because the impugned order itself makes it clear that the order will be effective till the decision of the preliminary issues. In fact, the preliminary issues were raised on the basis of contention of the defendants in reply to notice of motion for temporary injunction. Once the preliminary issues are decided, the impugned order will come to an end and thereafter depending upon the findings on the preliminary issues, the notice of motion will have to be heard and decided on its own merits. 3. In view of the above observations, appeal stands dismissed. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. :3: (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)