1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CA NOS.6075/2006; 6076/2006; 6064/1998; 5772/2006; 3202/2000 in SECOND APPEAL NO.487/1994. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 18 th March, 2010. ... 1) Heard Mr.Anoop Patil, Adv. h/for Mr. RN Dhorde and Mr. SS Bora for the respective parties. 2) Respective Applications are moved for bringing legal representatives of Respondent no.1; Respondent No.2 and appellant no.1 on record. These three applications indicate the names of legal representatives; Death certificates are annexed. 3) Considering the grounds mentioned in the respective applications, legal representatives of Respondent No.1; 2 and appellant no.1 be brought on record in the Second Appeal within fourteen days. These three applications disposed 2 of as above. 4) Issue notice to the legal representatives of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5) Mr.Dhorde waives service for the legal representatives of Respondent nos. 1 & 2. 6) By CA No.3202/2000, a request is made by Mr Dhorde to expedite hearing of the Second Appeal. Considering the age of the appeal, to be of 1994, I do not see any other legal hindrance to entertain such request, which is just. 7) Keep the Second Appeal for final hearing to 12th April, 2010. CA No.3202/2000 in this regard disposed of. 8) The original respondent no.1 by CA No. 5772/2006 requested for vacating stay and also for grant of injunction, restraining the appellant from alienating the property. It is canvassed, the nature of the property is purportedly and repeatedly tried to be changed by the appellant. 3 9) Though this submissions are cozy in its nature, are difficult to digest as the scale of change of the nature of the property is too wide to be considered. It is the individual’s perception, which weighed and accordingly the respondent feels that there may be change of nature of the property. Consequently, such relief is difficult to be acted upon rejected. Mr.Bora submits, the appellant shall not create third party interest in relation to the suit property till decision of the Second Appeal. The statement accepted. Consequently, nothing survives in this CA No. 5772/2006, it is disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/ca6075.06