: 1 : lpa.56.2011.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.56 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1973 OF 2011 Smt.Prerna Vikas Ambekar & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Shri P.S. Punde & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.S. Apte i/b Ambar Joshi for appellants Mr.V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the Respondent No.3 Mr.J.M. Joshi for Resp. NO.4 Mr.S.D. Thokade with S.S. Tigde for Resp. No.5 CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATED: 28th MARCH, 2011 P.C.: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1973 of 2001. The aforesaid writ petition was preferred by present Respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein. In the aforesaid Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge directed that the appeal filed by the original writ petitioner to be decided by 22.3.2011. Ad-interim order which was operating, was continued till the decision of the appeal and for a further period of one week from the decision of the appeal in case the decision was adverse against respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein. Mr.Apte, the learned Senior Counsel vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge should not have continued the interim protection after the decision in the appeal as according to him, even if the said respondents have no case on merits, interim relief once granted is continued from time to time and it may affect the interests of : 2 : lpa.56.2011.sxw the present appellants. In our view, by extending the interim protection for one week after the decision in case of a decision against Respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein itself cannot be construed as a ground as if the said respondents have any case on merits. It is needless to say that in case the respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein are required to file any revision or writ petition against the appellate order, the appropriate Court will have to consider whether any interim protection needs to be given or not in such a proceeding. It is needless to say that continuance of interim relief for a period of one week after the decision of the appeal can never be said to be a circumstance in favour of the respondent as in case the appellate order is in favour of the present appellant and if further proceedings are taken against the same by the other side, the concerned Court before whom such proceedings are taken is required to consider the case on its own merits. It is once again repeated that if any question of interim relief arises after the decision in the appeal, the same is to be required to be decided independently and without being influenced by the fact that the learned Single Judge has continued the interim protection for a period of one week from the date of the decision of the appeal. Considering the said fact, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and it is for the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies who is required to decide the appeal in accordance with law and as per the evidence on record. : 3 : lpa.56.2011.sxw 3. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.73 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)