1 Ash FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 350 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 466 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri N.V. Walawalkar along with Shri R.M. Pardiwalla i/by Mulla & Mulla and Cragie Blunt and Caroe for the Applicants. Shri Piyush Shah for the Respondents. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C.: . Heard Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Applicants and learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Applicants pointed out that the Applicants have not accepted the 2nd to 4th Respondents in the Revision Application as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased 1st Respondent. He pointed out that the order 2 dated 31st July, 2009 passed by this Court which records that the Applicants were permitted to delete the name of the 1st Respondent at their own risk. 3. The Applicants have not accepted the 2nd to 4th Respondents as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased 1st Respondent. It is, therefore, for the 2nd to 4th Respondents in the Revision Application to establish their rights. Hence, it is not necessary to grant prayer clause (a). As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the order dated 31st July, 2009 records the statement of the 2nd to 4th Respondents that they will not dispose off, encumber, transfer or create any third party rights in respect of the suit premises. For the time being, the said statement protects the interests of the Applicants. Hence, at this stage, it is not necessary to grant prayer clause (b). The application is accordingly disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J)