: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.966 OF 2009 ALONGWITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.967 OF 2009 Mahendrakumar Mukund Aurangabadkar and Anr. .. Appellants V/s. Pranesh Nandkumar Aurangabadkar .. Respondent Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Mr. Rajesh More for the Appellants. Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Nitin Mulye for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 3 RD MARCH, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeals from Orders have been filed to challenge the order dated 2nd May, 2009 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur. Suits were filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking certain reliefs against the appellants- defendants. Interim relief was also sought to the effect that the defendants, i.e. the appellants herein, should be restrained from obstructing the peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the suit property. : 2 : 2. The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that in an earlier Suit being Special Civil Suit No.92 of 2008, the present respondent-plaintiff was a defendant and the Suit was filed by the appellants. According to the learned Advocate that Suit being Special Civil Suit No.92 of 2008 was decreed and execution proceedings have already started. He submits that the applications filed for restoration of the Suits are pending. However, the applications for a stay of the execution proceedings have been rejected by the trial Court. The learned Advocate, therefore, submits that under the present circumstances, the trial Court ought not to have restrained the appellants from obstructing the possession of the respondent- plaintiff. 3. Admittedly, the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No.92 of 2008 was only a partial decree. The prayer for possession had not been granted by the trial Court. Thus, in my view, the trial Court in the present case has not committed any error by : 3 : directing the appellants not to obstruct the possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the suit property, during the pendency of this Suit. 4. The Appeals from Orders are dismissed.