: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.725 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.977 OF 2004 Dattusa Vitthalsa Gangji & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Kaushallya Purshuttom Rangrej & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.A. Valsangkar i/b. Mr. Pankaj Das for the Applicants. Smt. Jai Kanade i/b. Mr. G.S. Godbole for the Respondents. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1143 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.977 OF 2004 Kaushallya Purshuttom Rangrej & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Dattusa Vitthalsa Gangji & Ors. .. Respondents Smt. Jai Kanade i/b. Mr. G.S. Godbole for the Applicants. Mr. A.A. Valsangkar i/b. Mr. Pankaj Das for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C.: 1. Both the Civil Applications are taken up for hearing together. Civil Application No.725 of 2009 : 2 : has been filed by the respondents in the Second Appeal and Civil Application No.1143 of 2009 has been filed by the appellants in the Second Appeal. It appears that by an interim order dated 12th January, 2005, this court had directed the appellants to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs.500/- per month w.e.f. 1st January, 2005. This amount was to be deposited on or before 10th day of every calendar month. In case of any default, the respondents were at liberty to apply to this court for vacating the stay. According to the respondents in the Second Appeal, the appellants have not complied with this order as they have defaulted on a number of occasions in as much as the amount has not been deposited on or before the 10th day of every calendar month. 2. It appears that an application was moved being Civil Application No.1269 of 2007 before this court and an order was passed on 21st September, 2007 condoning the delay caused in depositing the amount since the amounts were deposited either on 11th or 12th day of each calendar month. However, it was : 3 : clarified that in case of any future delay in depositing the amount, it would be open for the respondents to apply for vacating the stay. 3. Accordingly, the respondents have filed Civil Application No.725 of 2009 for vacating the interim relief granted in favour of the appellants. 4. No reply has been filed to this Civil Application. However, the appellants have filed Civil Application No.1143 of 2009 seeking indulgence of this court for extending time to deposit the amount as there was a delay in depositing the amount. 5. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. It appears that there is a delay in each calendar month in depositing the amount. The appellants obviously have not complied with the order passed by this court and even after the delay was condoned on an earlier occasion, there is no change in the conduct of the appellants. : 4 : 6. However, for the reasons stated in the Civil Application No.1143 of 2009, the delay caused so far in depositing the amount is condoned. It is made clear that if in future there is even a single default in depositing the amount by the 10th day of each calendar month, the stay granted shall stand vacated without further reference to court. 7. Both the Civil Applications are disposed of. 8. It appears that many of the parties arrayed in the Second Appeal are senior citizens and therefore the Second Appeal is expedited. .......