IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1660 of 2005. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1660 of 2005. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1660 of 2005. IN IN IN SECOND APPEAL NO.158 oF 1994 SECOND APPEAL NO.158 oF 1994 SECOND APPEAL NO.158 oF 1994 Annaso Dadu Ghorpade & Others ..Applicants versus Maruti Raghu Ghorpade & Others ..Respondents Mr.P.P.Jadhav for the applicant Mr.Limaye for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 4th May, 2009. DATED : 4th May, 2009. DATED : 4th May, 2009. P.C. 1. The applicant claims that the respondents are borrowing monies and therefore they are creating third party rights in the matter where decree for partition is passed. According to learned Advocate for the applicant, this is the ground for vacating the stay. I am not inclined to accept the submission. If the respondents are creating third party rights it is open for the applicant to adopt some other proceeding, but the stay can’t be vacated and the partition cannot be permitted when the decree for partition under challenge. Hence the Order. -2- ORDER i. Application is rejected with no Order as to costs. ii. Learned Advocate for the applicant states that in the past an Order has been passed on Civil Application No.1661 of 2005 and according to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the said application has been disposed of and according to him the matter is ordered to be listed for final hearing. If this be so, there is no need for this Court to pass any separate Order. iii. The said Order on Civil Application No.1661 of 2005 shall be acted upon by the office. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)