1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 161 OF 2010 Vilas Kedari Nikam. .. Petitioner Vs Rajnikant Appaji Shinde & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri M.V. Holamagi for the petitioner. Shri Dharmendra M. Joshi for Respondent No.1. Shri P.Y. Ladekar, Court Receiver present. -- CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. The petitioner, who has lost all the proceedings in the City Civil Court where a decree of possession is passed against the petitioner and has been confirmed right upto the Apex Court, has challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in so far as the said provision specifically provides that no appeal shall be maintainable against the decree passed by the first appellate Court. 2. We do not find any merit in the challenge to the constitutional validity of the said provision, but while dismissing the petition, we record the statement being made by learned counsel for 2 respondent No.1 that the Court Receiver has already taken over the possession of the suit premises and that the petitioner’s goods lying in the suit premises will be shifted by the Court Receiver to other premises to be made available by respondent No.1 and the petitioner’s goods will be permitted to remain in such premises upto 30th September, 2010. Respondent no.1 will not recover any amount or compensation from the petitioner for the said period but it is clear that the petitioner shall not have any right whatsoever in the premises in which the petitioner’s goods will be allowed to remain till 30th September, 2010. The Court Receiver will remove the goods lying in the suit premises by 14th August, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. and it will be open to the petitioner to remain present when the Court Receiver removes the goods. The Court Receiver will hand over the keys of the suit premises to respondent No.1 as per the decree which is already passed by the City Civil Court and confirmed in the first appeal. In case the petitioner does not remove the goods from the other premises by 30th September, 2010, it will be open to the Court Receiver to auction the said goods and deposit the amount with the Executing Court. The petition is disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J