1 (CAS 1486 of 2010 in SA 851 of 2002) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1486 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 851 OF 2002 Smt. Nirmalaben Shambhuprasad Patel (since deceased through her LRs) Ashwinkumar Shambhuprasad Patel and Ors. ….Applicants Vs. Chandrahas J. Patel and Anr. ...Respondents ----- Ms.Anjana S. Patel -Party in person Mr. P.R. Gyani for Respondents ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 20TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the Applicant No.2, who is appearing in person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This is an application filed by the Applicant, who is the original Respondent in Second Appeal for vacating the stay which was granted by this Court by order dated 4.3.2003 in favour of the Appellants. By the said 2 (CAS 1486 of 2010 in SA 851 of 2002) order, stay was granted to the execution of the judgment and order passed by the Lower Courts. A suit was filed by the Applicant herein for eviction of the Respondents/Appellants on the ground that they are trespassers in the suit property. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the said order was confirmed by the Appellate court. The second appeal was admitted by this Court and while admitting the second appeal, this Court had directed to the parties to maintain status quo as on today. Further the Appellants- Respondents were directed not to create any third party rights in respect of the suit property. It is now contended by the Applicant that the Respondents/Appellants have created third party rights in favour of the Nemchand on the first floor and have committed breach of the order dated 4.3.2003. The Applicant is also seeking damages and exemplary costs of Rs.5,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- 3 (CAS 1486 of 2010 in SA 851 of 2002) p.m. and fixing peremptory date of final hearing of the second appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the said Nemchand is the son of the tenant and, therefore, no third party rights has been created. Secondly, it is submitted that the Appellant some times resides with her son. 4. In my view, taking into consideration this fact, at this stage, it will not be possible to vacate the interim order passed by this Court in terms of prayer clause (a) in Civil Application No. 1182 of 2002. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate if the Second Appeal peremptorily is fixed for final hearing in the weeks commencing from 4th July, 2011. Civil Application is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)