1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR C.A.O. NO. 499/09 (In C.A.No. 9377/07) (In W.P. No. 2711 OF 2005 Smt. Shobhabai w/o Manikrao Naik (Vijay Deosing Ratho d & anr.- applicant) v. St. of Maharashtra & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.U. Nemade advocate for the applicant. .... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 19 th JUNE, 2009. Heard Mr.Nemade, learned counsel for the applicants on the application for speaking to minutes. Learned counsel submits that in paragraph 7 of the order under review dated 6.10.2008 this Court has made such observations which are going to obstruct the applicants from applying and getting interim stay of possession in the proceedings they would like to file and therefore the learned counsel seeks clarification by this application. 2. Para 7 of the order reads thus: 2 Advocate Shri Nemade and Advocate Shri Samarth state that they would like to obtain orders regarding possession in the proceedings they want to file. They are free to do so. But this Court is unable to protect their possession. Hence, interim orders made by this Court stand vacated. 3. Reading of the above clearly shows that Mr.Nemade and Mr.Samarth were given liberty to file such proceedings as they like before subordinate authority/ Tribunal and not only that they were given freedom to apply for protection of their possession in such proceedings. This Court however declined to protect their possession while disposing of the said review petition by order dated 6.10.2008 and therefore vacated the interim protection. It is thus clear that this Court never prevented the clients of Mr.Nemade and Mr.Samarth from applying for protection of their possession in the proceedings they would like to file before the Tribunal. The language in para 7 is as simple as it could be. Hence this application filed by Mr.Nemade is clearly frivolous and without understanding the meaning of the sentence in para 7. It is further made 3 clear that clients of Mr.Nemade are entitled to apply for protection of their possession in the proceedings which Mr.Nemade claims to have filed before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Since the application has been made without understanding, counsel for the applicants to pay costs of Rs. One thousand to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee Nagpur within four weeks. C.A. disposed of. JUDGE /TA/