1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4840 OF 2009 Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh and others Petitioners versus Qamar Ali s/o Noorali @ Kamarlal Noorali Fetawala Respondent K.D.Jha for petitioners. Prem Gidwani for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th July 2009 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the defendants in a suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 filed by the respondent. By order dated 22nd April 2009, the learned Trial Judge has granted ad-interim injunction on a Notice of Motion restraining the petitioners from creating any third party interests in respect of the suit property till 7th May 2009. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said ad- interim order has been extended from time to time and is operating till today. He submits that at the time of hearing on the prayer for ad-interim relief he had made a categorical statement that the petitioners are not concerned with the suit premises and they have not dispossessed the respondent. His grievance is that the said statement is not considered by the learned Trial Judge. 3. It is an admitted the position that till today the petitioners have not 2 filed any reply to the Notice of Motion. If the petitioners are not concerned with the suit premises and if they have not dispossessed the respondent, they will have to say so by filing a reply. 4. Hence, no case is made out for interference with the ad-interim order when the Notice of Motion is still pending. The writ petition is rejected.. However, it will be open for the petitioners to file a reply, if any, to the Notice of Motion and oppose the same. Moreover, all questions on merits of the Notice of Motion and the Suit are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)