1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.722 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.844 OF 2008 ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.723 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.845 OF 2008 ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.724 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.846 OF 2008 ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.725 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.847 OF 2008 Shri Nikesh Pravinchand Shah & ors. : Appellants versus Shri Kiran Sitaram Chavan : Respondent. ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.726 OF 2008 Shri Mahendra Mafatlal Shah : Appellant versus Shri Kiran Sitaram Chavan, HUF : Respondent. Shri. R.D.Soni i/by Ram & Co. for the Appellants. Shri.S.K.Shinde for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. 2 DATED : JANUARY 05, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 27th March 2008 passed on the Exhibit-5 Applications in Special Civil Suit Nos.574 of 2007, 578 of 2007, 577 of 2007, 576 of 2007 and 575 of 2007. 2. The above Appeals have been filed by the Defendants. In Cross Appeals filed by the Plaintiff being Appeal from Order Nos.624 of 2008 to 627 of 2008, an order has been passed on 23rd July 2008 recording the statement made on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff therein that he would move the trial Court for clarification of clause (2) of the operative part of the impugned order dated 27th March 2008 and a liberty has also been reserved to the Appellant in the said Cross Appeals that in the event any adverse order is passed by the trial Court on the application seeking clarification, he would be entitled to challenge the same. Today a similar order has also been passed in the Cross Appeal No.623 of 2008 which remained to be disposed of along with the said companion Appeal Nos.624 of 2008 to 627 of 3 2008. 3. Though in the above Appeals filed by the Defendants, the order is also under challenge on merits. In my view, in the light of the orders passed in the Cross Appeals dated 23rd July 2008 and 5th January 2009, there is no warrant to consider the above Appeals on merits at this stage as the Plaintiff has already moved an application for seeking clarification of clause (2) of the operative part of the said impugned order dated 27th March 2008 in which the notices have been issued to the Defendants. The Defendants would, therefore, be entitled to put forth their case in respect of the clause (2) of the operative part of the said order dated 27th March 2008, in so far as the word “absolute encumbrances” is concerned. Since in my view the challenge of the Defendants to the order passed would substantially hinge on the clarification issued by the trial Court in respect of clause (2) of the operative part of the impugned order dated 27th March 2008, by keeping open the right of the Defendants to challenge the order on merits as well as regards clarification issued by the trial Court, if adverse to them, the above Appeals are disposed of. 4 4. Needless to say that the trial Court to hear the parties on the application for clarification moved by the Plaintiff. 5. In view of the disposal of the above Appeals, the Civil Applications in each of the above Appeal do not survive and are, therefore, disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]