IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 269 IN 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3037 OF 2003 A.F. Ferguson and Co. ... Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondent Mr. Rafiq Dada, Sr. Counsel with Mr. P. Gandhi i/b. Crofford Bayley & Co. for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Shetye with Ms. Naina Kapadia i/b. Pandya Gandhi & Co. for respondent No.3. Mr. Y.R. Mishra with Mr. Y.S. Bhate for respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : F.I. REBELLO, : F.I. REBELLO, : F.I. REBELLO, ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. V. MOHTA,JJ. V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 21st April, 2006 : 21st April, 2006 : 21st April, 2006 P.C. . An interim order came to be passed on April 6, 2004 in terms of prayer clause (e) after hearing all the parties to the petition. The respondents, being aggrieved, preferred an SLP in the Apex Court. That was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.10.2004. 2. The petitioners have now moved the present Motion seeking variation of that order. The relief, as presently prayed for, is to modify the order of 6th April, 2004 so as to provide that the proceedings be proceeded, pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, but no final order be pronounced in the said ( 2 ) matter. It is submitted that the petitioners have moved this petition on the basis of some other order passed in Civil Appeal No. 171 of 2004 before the Apex Court. It is dated 10.09.2004 and in the Civil Application taken out therein, while admitting the SLP, following order has been passed. "Proceeding may go on, but final order be not passed." 3. It is therefore clear that SLP/Civil Application filed was preferred against the dismissal of the petition by this Court. 4. On behalf of respondent, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Manager (Accounts & Legal) has filed an affidavit. It is set out that applicants herein had also argued for variation of the order and sought similar relief as passed in the Civil Appeal which has already been adverted to. 5. Considering all these facts, and that an interim order has been passed and SLP against the same has been dismissed, in our opinion, it is not a fit case to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction for varying the order as sought. ( 3 ) 6. Motion is rejected. [F.I. [F.I. [F.I. REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] REBELLO, J.] [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]