1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1309 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2007 Sou. Jagadevi Narayan Parit (Amarappurkar) (Nemesis Jagdevi Shivaji Parit) ..Applicants V/s. Siddraamappa Kallappa Sherikar & others ..Respondents Mr.M.V.Walavalkar, Sr. Advocate i/b G.H.Keluskar for the applicants Mr. Shaiksail Sakhare for respondent nos. 3,4,6 & 9 Mr. Ananad Kulkarni for respondent no.12 CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED :18th June, 2008 P.C. . By order dated 4-10-2007 this Court has admitted the present second appeal on various questions of law and granted liberty to parties to apply for early hearing of the matter and at the same stroke the Court has granted and infact continued the order on interim-relief of the status-quo as granted by the lower Appellate Court which has been continued since 2004. 2. This Court also after hearing both the parties on 4-10-2007 directed parties to maintain status-quo. The said order of status-quo has been in force since then till date as continued from time to time even by consent. Respondent no. 12, the purchaser of the property in question in auction has filed reply dated 14-12-2007 to the said application and thereby seeking 2 vacation of the status-quo granted and continued by this Court. The appellant herein is legal heir of original defendant no.4. As required the property in question cannot be partitioned being a dwelling house. The option is required to be given to the respective shareholders of the property. Therefore, unless last coparcener opt to purchase that property, normally, that property cannot be put to auction as done in the present case. The purchaser, therefore, after auction deposited the whole money to the extent of Rs. 3,80,000/- in the Court and,therefore, insisting on various grounds for vacating stay interim order though the second appeal is admitted, which is affecting his rights to occupy the premises and to take the possession of the premises. 3. Without going further into the merits of the case as there is no dispute that the applicant is one of the legal heir of defendant no.4, whatever his right to purchase the property unless decided and adjudicated at this stage, I am of the view that there is no question of vacating the interim order of status-quo which has been in force since 2004 practically. 4. The submission that respondent no. 12 purchaser is suffering, thus, cannot be a ground to vacate the status-quo order as granted. The liberty is granted to respondent no. 12 to withdraw the money if so desired, 3 however, that will not affect his right which he has already acrued in view of the purchase of the property in auction. In this background the submission that the appellant should deposit the money so sent by the purchaser is not acceptable. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 12 further submitted that his client is ready to give undertaking if possession is given, that he will not alter or change the structure of the premises. I am not inclined to accept this submission also in view of the above reasoning itself. 6. Merely because applicant is staying out of State that itself cannot be a reason to discard her application for interim relief, as prayed in the second appeal. 7. Hence, in view of this the interim order so granted shall continue pending the disposal of present second appeal. 8. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed off. The submission of vacating of stay is, therefore, rejected. [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.] V. MOHTA,J.]