* 1 * Appeal-228/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 228 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 353 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3 OF 2008 M/s. Bhoomi Tej Realtors .... Appellant V/S. Mr. Raoji Y. Sahade & Ors. .... Respondents * * * * Mr. Shailesh Shah i/by. M/s. Khona & Kayser, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Lambay i/by. Lambay & Co., Advocate for respondent no.1/2. Ms. Yasmin Tavaria, Advocate for respondent no.12. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED : 13th JULY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The only grievance against the order impugned in the Appeal made by the appellant is that the learned Single Judge did not * 2 * Appeal-228/2010 continue the interim order of status-quo. The interim order of status- quo had the effect of staying proceedings taken out by the bank under the Secrutisation Act. It is common ground now that the bank has taken steps under the Secrutisation Act and has already sold one of the Shops and the learned counsel appearing for the bank has stated before us that the bank has recovered its entire dues by sale of that Shop. Now it is obvious that the bank will not be interested in selling any more Shops. So far as the continuation of the order of status-quo in respect of other Shops is concerned, in our opinion, the proper remedy for the appellant was to move Notice of Motion in his pending suit and not insist before the learned Single Judge to continue the order of status-quo in the Chamber Summons which was basically seeking amendment in the plaint. 2. The appeal, in our opinion, cannot be entertained. Hence, rejected. Notice of Motion No. 1296 of 2010 in Appeal No. 228 of 2010 also stands disposed off. [D.K. DESHMUKH, J] [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]