1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 355 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 445 OF 2010 Sanjay Macchindra Dhangar .. Applicant Versus Machindra Shankar Dhangar and another .. Respondent Shri A. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . The learned counsel for the applicant states that the present application is filed for stay of the impugned judgment and decree. Perusal of the said decree shows that Clause 2 of the said decree is not executable one. As far as Clause 3 is concerned the injunction is granted against the defendant. The applicant is aggrieved by the Clause 4 of the decree which says that the plaintiffs are not supposed to dispossess the defendant without following due process of law. 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the plaintiff has filed a suit for possession. The injunction in clause 4 is not a blanket injunction, but is limited to the extent that the defendant shall not be dispossessed without following due process of law. The plaintiff is not prevented to take the recourse of law to seek the possession. In view of the same no orders are necessary on this civil application. As such, the civil application is disposed of. [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Sept. 10