1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Appeal No.489 of 2009 In Notice of Motion No.2233 of 2008 In Suit No.1870 of 2008 Variegate Realestate Pvt.Ltd. Appellants Vs. Daulat Sheriar Ahrestani alias Miss Dolly Sheriar Irani & ors. Respondents Mr.S.V.Doijode with Mr.Kishore Mhatre i/b. Doijode Associates for appellants. Mr.Y.R.Shah for resp.nos.1 and 2. Mr.M.R.Irani – respondent no.3 in person. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. January 29, 2010. P.C. 1. By the impugned order dated 22nd October 2008 the learned trial 2 Judge has passed an order granting limited ad-interim relief. The Notice of Motion is pending and as noted in the order passed in this appeal on 10/11/2009 the motion is kept for final hearing. In the Motion two substantial reliefs were prayed for viz. (a) an injunction restraining the defedants from creating third party interest in respect of the suit property, and (b) restraining the defendants from entering into the suit property. The operative part of the ad-interim order passed by the learned trial Judge and which has been impugned in this appeal reads as under: “10. There will be a limited ad-interim relief restraining the 1st defendant from creating any third party interests in respect of the suit property and from inducting any third party (save and except the 2nd and 3rd defendant) in the premises in her possession. The 1st defendant shall not create any further interest in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The defendants are also restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the other part of the suit property (except the 1st floor of the building). The notice of motion is made returnable after 12 weeks. Reply to be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder, if any to be filed within four weeks thereof.” 3 2. On 10th November 2009 this Court recorded the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties that the pleadings which are part of this appeal would be treated as pleadings in the Motion pending and they will co-operate in ensuring that the Motion is decided within a period of three weeks from 10/11/2009. 3. It is thus obvious that the appellant-plaintiff has partly succeeded in obtaining ad-interim order and for the remaining prayers the Notice of Motion is pending before the learned trial Judge. We do not see any reason to entertain this appeal at this stage and from 22nd October 2008 onwards there is no other ad-interim injunction operating against the defendants. 4. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The order passed by this Court on 10/11/2009 will continue to operate till the disposal of the Notice of Motion. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)