: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.22 OF 2010 Prem Kutir Welfare Association ... Appellant V/s. The State of Maharashtra &Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.S. Dani i/b A.M. Saraogi for Appellant Ms.K.K. Soraan for Resp. No.2 Mrs.Kiran Bagalia for Respondent No.3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 12, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal from order has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court on 19.12.2009. The grievance of the appellant is about the trial Court’s refusal to grant ad-interim relief in favour of the appellant. 2. The appellant had approached this Court earlier to challenge the order passed by the trial Court in an earlier Motion. The trial Court had considered the fact that two writ petitions were pending and therefore had not granted any interim relief to the appellant-plaintiff and had dismissed the Motion. Apart from that, the trial Court had also taken into account the fact that the individual occupants of the buildings who were members of the appellants herein had filed separate suits and, therefore, no relief could be granted to the appellant association. This order was challenged in Appeal from Order No.1169 of 2009 on 23.11.2009. 3. By order of 23.11.2009, this Court had dismissed the appeal by concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Thereafter, it appears that writ petitions : 2 : filed in this Court have been dismissed on 3.12.2009. The appellant association has then moved the present Notice of Motion. The trial Court refused to grant ad-interim relief on the ground that it would amount to sitting in Appeal over the order passed in the earlier Notice of Motion. 4. In my view, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Although the order of 23.12.2009 passed by me in the earlier Appeal from Order does not in so many words say that all the points decided by the trial Court have been considered, it must be presumed that all the questions argued have been considered by the Court. When the High Court upholds the order passed by a lower Court, it is axiomatic that it has considered all relevant features of the trial Court’s order and the arguments advanced by the parties while passing the order. Therefore in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the refusal by the trial Court to grant any ad-interim relief. 5. Appeal from Order is dismissed. 6. Mr.Dani appearing for the appellant, prays that the order of status quo granted earlier should be continued in order to enable the appellant to challenge the earlier order of this Court dated 23.11.2009. Ms.Bagalia opposes this application as according to her the entire project for the road is held up because of the existence of the two buildings occupied by members of the appellant. The order of status quo shall continue for a period of three weeks from today.