1 43 caf.2828.10 ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2828 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 957 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. J.Reis i/b Mr. R.N.Kachare for the Applicants. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11 th February, 2011. P.C. 1 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicants states that all the Respondents have been duly served and affidavit of service has been placed on record. The statement is accepted. Hence, the application is taken up for hearing. This is an application for stay of operation and execution of the impugned decree, the operative part of which reads thus: “ORDER 1. Suit decreed with costs. 2. Defendant No.1 to 4 or anybody else on their behalf are hereby restrained permanently from causing any sort of obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties and/or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit properties without following due process of law. 2 43 caf.2828.10 3. Decree be drawn accordingly. 4. R & P be sent to the Record / Dept.” 2 During the pendency of the suit, there was no interim injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the Respondents – plaintiffs. In fact, the notice of motion for temporary injunction was dismissed and the said order was confirmed upto the Supreme Court. Thus, during the pendency of the suit, from the year 1994, there was no interim injunction operating in favour of the Respondents. 3 The Respondents – original plaintiffs have raised plea of adverse possession in the suit. However, there is no finding recorded on this aspect, though an issue was framed. The learned trial Judge has observed that the issue was redundant as the Respondents – plaintiffs were in settled possession. The entries of the name of the predecessors of the Respondents were made in the 7/12 extracts which have been admittedly set aside. Reliance was placed by the Respondents on the order of the Additional Tahsildar (NA), which has been admittedly set aside. 3 43 caf.2828.10 4 The suit proceeds on the footing that the Respondents have perfected their title by adverse possession. As stated earlier, issue of adverse possession has not been decided, though the same has been framed. In the circumstances, a case is made out for grant of stay. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). In view of grant of prayer clause (a), prayer clause (b) need not be granted. Application is allowed accordingly. [ A.S.OKA, J ]