1 caf3239-04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3239 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2004 Vitthal C. Arbuj .. Applicant V/s. Vimalabai Chimanrao Arbuj & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. A. P. Vanarse for the applicant. Mr. A. M. Vernekar for the respondents. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 15, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Appellant is the applicant. Appellant is the original plaintiff. Suit was filed by the appellant/original plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit property. By the impugned decree, the suit has been dismissed. The learned trial Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation. 2 caf3239-04 3. The first prayer in the application is for stay of the decree which cannot be granted as the suit has been dismissed. The second prayer is for admitting the Appeal and for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 5th February, 2004 in the suit. Such a relief cannot be granted. The third prayer is for restraining the first and second respondents from creating any third party rights. 4. Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, there was no temporary injunction granted in favour of the appellant/applicant. The suit is filed on 7th September, 2001 which was dismissed on 5th February, 2004. 5. Looking into the findings recorded by the trial Court and considering the fact that even during the pendency of the trial, there was no injunction granted in favour of the applicant, the prayer for injunction cannot be granted. However, as the Appeal is pending, if any third party rights are created by the respondents during the pendency of the Appeal, the same will be subject to the final outcome of the Appeal. 3 caf3239-04 6. Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for grant of interim relief. JUDGE