caw824-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.824 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2531 OF 2005 Harkubai Sukrya Andher (Varli) and Ors. .. Applicants Versus German Frank Nilolav and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sunil Kumar with Rakesh Kumar i/by Legal Vision for the applicants. Mr.Kamat with Ashwin Kumar i/by M/s.Ashwin Mankad & Associates for respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent No.7. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] Heard both sides. Perused the civil application and the affidavit in reply filed. In the light of the assertions in the affidavit in reply and particularly at page 6 sub-paras (i) to (vi), the interim order as operating earlier cannot be revived. However, it is clarified that any rights created during the pendency of the petition in favour of third parties shall abide by caw824-11.doc 2 the final outcome in the petition and will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioners. Further, the contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 5 shall intimate all the purchasers about pendency of the petition. Civil application is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)