1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.458 OF 2006 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1455 OF 1999 IN SUIT NO.2606 OF 1999 Smt.Manorama A. Omprakash Ralhan .. Appellant (Ori. plaintiff) Vs. Munesh Ralhan alias Ricky Ralhan .. Respondents & Anr. Mr. A.M. Vernekar, Advocate for appellant. Ms. Gayatri Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.Gaurav Joshi with Mr. B.B. Saraf & Naushad Engineer i/by Desai & Diwanji for respondent no.2. Coram : D.K. Deshmukh & Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. Date : 15th July, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appellant in this appeal namely Manorama Ralhan is aggrieved by the order impugned in the appeal in two respects. First is that the learned Single Judge has not made any order in relation to prayer clause (b) of Notice of Motion No.1455 of 1999. (b) That the Defendants be ordered to render an account of such of the said properties as have come to their hands; 2. Perusal of the order impugned shows that there is no order made on this prayer but order does not show this aspect was 2 pressed by learned counsel before the learned Single Judge. In any case, the suit is still pending and therefore this prayer can always be made by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the civil suit. In our opinion, therefore, for this reason, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Second grievance made by the appellant is that though on the basis of the statement made by the respondent no.2 Mrs.Rupali Shah, Rupali Shah has been directed to deposit Rs.75.00 lacs in the Court, the learned Judge has not directed her to pay any interest on the amount. In our opinion, as the suit is pending, that prayer can be made by the appellant before the learned Single Judge either by an application for interim order or at the final disposal of the suit. Therefore, in our opinion, on this count also no interference is called for with the impugned order. The appeal is disposed of. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) ( D.K. Deshmukh, J.)