1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 57 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 1 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 244 OF 2010 M/s. Sumer Associates ... Appellants. vs. B.Y. Chavan & Anr. ..... Respondents. WITH APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 1 OF 2010 Gwendoline Lobo & Anr. .. Appellants. vs. B.Y. Chavan & Ors. .. Respondents. 2 WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 44 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2010 IN SUIT (L) NO. 16 OF 2010 Gwendoline Lobo & Anr. .. Appellants. vs. Craic Pereira & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 45 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 148 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 1 OF 2010 The Bombay Catholic Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., . .. Appellants. vs. B.Y. Chavan & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 50 OF 2010 3 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2010 IN SUIT (L) NO. 16 OF 2010 The Bombay Catholic Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., . .. Appellants. vs. Craig Pereyra & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH APPEAL (L) NO. 58 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2010 IN SUIT (L) NO. 16 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 245 OF 2010 M/s. Sumer Associates ... Appellants. vs. Craig Pereyra & Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr. R.M. Kadam, Advocate General with Dr. B.B. Saraf i/by Kishore Thokordas & Co. for Appellants in Appeal No. 57/10. 4 Mr. R.A. Dada, Sr. Adv., i/by Kishore Thokordas & Co. for Appellants in Appeal No. 58/10. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Adv., with A.A. Lokhandwala i/by Lokhandwala & Co. for Appellants in Appeal No. 43/10 & 44/10. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Adv. with C.D. Mehta, Bhavik Mehta, D.R. Mehta & Lalan Gupta i/by Dhru Liladhar & Co. for appelants in Apeal No. 45/10 & 50/10. 1. Mr. F. D'vitre, Sr. Adv. with Jimmy Avasia i/by Dastur Dadhich & Kalambi for Respondents (Orig. Plaintiffs). Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Sr. Adv., with F. Dubhash i/by Kartikeya & Asso. for respondent no. 6. Mr. D.D. Madon, Sr. Adv., i/by Kanga & Co. for respondent (original defendant no. 73). CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. In Appeal No. 44 of 2010 as the appellant is not a party to the suit, leave is sought to file the appeal to challenge the impugned order. Leave granted. 5 2. These appeals arise out of the ad-interim order dated 11.1.2010 by which the defendants to the suit have been directed not to take further steps based upon the conveyance dated 7.12.2009 and to preserve status quo pending the hearing of the notice of motion. Since the appeal is preferred against the ad-interim order and the notice of motion is still pending for hearing, the rights of the parties are yet to be decided after consideration of the pleadings of the parties. In the circumstances we are not inclined to interfere with the ad-interim order.. However, till the final hearing of the notice of motion, the parties are bound to preserve status quo in respect of the suit property. This order is passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. With these observations, the appeals stand dismissed. All the parties are directed to cooperate with the learned Single Judge for early disposal of the notice of motion and other proceedings pending in the suit. We request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the notice of motion within a period of six weeks. (J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J.) (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)