1 srk app-917-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 917 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2233 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1870 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2233 OF 2008 Variegate Realestate Private Limited ... Appellant Versus Tehmul R. Irani and another. ... Respondents Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.V. Doijode and Mr. K.G. Mhatre i/by M/s. Doijode & Associates for the appellant. Mr. Y.R. Shah for respondent No.2. Mr. M.R. Irani, respondent No.3 in person. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Tuesday, October 19, 2010 P .C. Upon pronouncement of the judgment today, the learned advocate for defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 who appears in person pray for stay of the operation of this order in order to have further recourse in accordance with law. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer is granted and operation of this judgment shall remain stayed for a period of 8 weeks from today. 2 srk app-917-10.sxw 3. Counsel for defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 who appears in person further pray that even after a period of 8 weeks, the appellant-plaintiff may not be permitted to take away the furniture and articles lying in the suit premises since these belonged to defendant No.1 or to a common ancestor of the defendants. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant-plaintiff states that the plaintiff would have no objection to defendant Nos.2 and 3 removing the furniture and articles from the suit premises. However, defendant No.3 submits that since the plaintiff has not prayed for possession of the premises, the plaintiff has no right to enter the suit premises. In view of the finding given by us, what is claimed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 as possession is not settled possession and defendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot be considered to be settled in possession of the suit property. 5. In view of the above, the prayer of defendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot be accepted. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.