1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.141 OF 2009 . ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.167 OF 2009 . Mrs.Majulaben Mathurdas Rajda widow of late Mr.Mathurdas Gokaldas Rajda & ors. : Appellants. Versus Jasmin Kishorechandra Ajmera & ors. : Respondents. Shri. R M Kadam, Senior Advocate with Shri N R Enginer i/by RMC Law Associates for the Appellants. Shri. Sanjay Jain with Ms Laxmi Jessani i/by M/s. A V Jain Associates for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 30, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 26th December 2008 by which order ad-interim reliefs have been granted to the Respondents herein i.e. The Plaintiffs in S.C. Suit (L) No. 2881 of 2008. 2 2. Considering that the Notice of Motion is as yet pending, in my view, it would be appropriate if without interdicting at this stage, the said Motion is directed to be heard and disposed of within a particular time frame. Hence the following order :- :ORDER: (i) The Notice of Motion Exhibit-2, filed by the Plaintiffs in S.C. Suit (L) 2881 of 2008 is directed to be disposed of within a period of ten weeks from date. (i) The Defendants i.e the Appellants herein to file in their Affidavit in Reply by 5th February 2009 and serve a copy of the same on the Plaintiffs. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed by the Plaintiffs by7 15th February 2009. (iii) Needless to say that the said Motion to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. (iv) It is made clear that pending the said Motion, the ad-interim 3 relief granted by the impugned order dated 26th December 2008 would operate. (v) In the light of the aforesaid directions, the learned senior counsel for the Appellants does not press the Appeal, which is accordingly disposed of as such. (vi) In view of the disposal of the above Appeal, the Civil Application No.167 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]