1 LPA 284.11 Kambli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.284 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7476 OF 2009 ... Prakash Shankar Wagh ...Appellant v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.N.G.Thakker, Sr.Advocate with Mr.G.C.Mohanty i/b Mohanty & Associates for the Appellant. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Sr.Advocate with Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Shron Jagtiani and Ms.Anooja Menon i/b Wadia Gandhy & Co. for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3. Mr.Rohit Kapadia, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vaibhav Joglekar, Ms.Priyanka Patel i/b M.K.Ambalal & Co. for Respondents Nos. 4 to 7. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b RMG Law Associates for Respondent No.9. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Anoop V. Mohta, JJ DATED: 29th September, 2011 P.C.: This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th July, 2011 2 LPA 284.11 passed in Writ Petition No.7470 of 2009. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal has been raised on behalf of the Respondent. It is pointed out that it is apparent from the order of the learned single Judge which is impugned in the appeal that the Petitioner has abandoned his remedy of appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both sides. Perusal of the order impugned in the appeal shows that the learned single Judge after hearing the parties was of the opinion that the appropriate remedy of the Petitioner was to file a civil suit. The learned single Judge, therefore, held “ Civil court is, therefore, not going to be influenced by these orders in the substantive proceedings as apprehended by the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore disposed of.” 3. It appears that at that stage a request was made on behalf of the Petitioner to the learned single Judge to 3 LPA 284.11 continue the ad-interim order to enable the Petitioner to file civil suit. The learned single Judge accepted that request, and continued the operation of the ad-interim order. The learned single Judge also observed that all contentions are kept open. The observations in paragraph 2 of the order are relevant. They read as under: “2. At this stage, Mr.D’Mello appearing for the petitioner, states that to enable the petitioner to file a suit in the competent civil court and seek appropriate interim reliefs, this court should continue the ad-interim order which has been made in the writ petition. This request is opposed by counsel appearing for respondents. Since the issues which the petitioner raised are with regard to his right, title and interest in the immovable property and having clarified that his remedy is to file a civil suit, interest of justice would be served if the ad-interim order, if any, is continued for a period of eight weeks, Needless to state that the grant as well as continuance of the ad- interim order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. It is also clarified that this court has not gone into the rival contentions on merits so also on the locus as well as maintainability of the proceedings at the instance of the petitioner. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. Disposal of this writ petition will not in any manner prevent the petitioner to raise appropriate pleas even at the stage of hearing of the interlocutory application in the proceedings. 4 LPA 284.11 4. The Petitioner, thus, made a representation to the learned single Judge that the Petitioner has accepted the view of the learned single Judge that civil suit is a proper remedy and therefore requested the learned single Judge to continue the operation of the ad-interim order. The learned single Judge acted on that representation and continued the ad-interim order. In our opinion, therefore, this conduct of the Petitioner estopes the Petitioner from filing any appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. Appeal is, therefore, disposed of. (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)