1 55-2563-10.sxw srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2563 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1314 OF 2010 Shri Mohan T. Agare .. Applicant V/s. Shri Namdev S. Agre & Ors., .. Respondents. Ms. Hina A. Mody, for Applicant. Shri S.S.Kudalkar, for Respondents Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 11 CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE: 7th September, 2010. PC: 1 The applicant by way of present application seeks stay to the effection and operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court on 24th March, 2010. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that misconstruing the judgment and decree order passed by the learned trial court, the Respondents are trying to disturb the possession of the Applicant. 2 55-2563-10.sxw 3 The judgment and decree challenged in the present appeal only restrains the Defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs without following due process of law. It is thus clear that if the Applicants wants the plaintiffs to be dispossessed, they can always takes steps for dispossessing the plaintiffs by following due process of law. 4 In so far as the contention of the plaintiffs regarding the defendants obstructing their possession is concerned, I find that the said apprehension is totally misplaced. It can be seen from para 18 of the judgment, that the learned trial court has found that father of the present applicant Tanaji and one Krishna Agre were shown as tenant in representative capacity of the persons residing in the suit premises and not in their individual capacity. 5 On the contrary, it can be seen from the order dated 6th May, 2010, passed by this court in Appeal from Order (St.)No.12002 of 2010 that this court has clearly observed that the Defendant No.1 can stay in the said room along with the plaintiffs and others from that village, but Defendant No.1 cannot claim exclusive possession. 3 55-2563-10.sxw 6 The application is, therefore, rejected with the aforesaid observations. (B.R.GAVAI,J.)