-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6609 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.6609 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.6609 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.2583 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.2583 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.2583 OF 2007 Dhanraj P. Jain ...Applicant vs. Shantabai S.Gajakos & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.R.Sharma for the Applicant Mr.R.A.Thorat i/b Mr.R.N.Kachare for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2008 : FEBRUARY 20, 2008 : FEBRUARY 20, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the Applicant and the Advocate for the first Respondent. It is not in dispute that the impugned decree for possession is in respect of Shop No.12. My attention has been invited to paragraph 39 of the cross examination of the present Applicant (original defendant No.3) in which he has made a categorical statement that he has sold the shop No.12 to one Muslim gentleman one year after obtaining possession. It is, therefore, obvious that the present applicant is not in possession. Hence, the prayer made for stay of execution of the decree for possession cannot be granted. The Application is accordingly rejected. 2. The Advocate for the Applicant prays for continuation of the ad-interim relief. Considering the fact that ad-interim relief was granted earlier by this court, the same will continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today. -2- JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE