1 ao788-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 788 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 982 OF 2010 Smt. Kusum Shivram Shinde & Anr. .. Appellants V/s. M/s.Mishra Builders & Developers & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Manoj Mhatre for the appellants. Mr. Anil Singh i/b. Mr. R. U. Pathak for respondent No.1. Mr. S. B. Amin for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 7, 2011. P.C.:­ Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The Appeal is directed against the order dated 10th June, 2010 passed by the learned trial Court by which prayer for ad­interim injunction made by the appellant/plaintiff in a Notice of Motion has been rejected. In the impugned order, the trial Court has noted that by the order of the State Consumer Commission, the first respondent has been restrained from selling, transferring or mortgaging Shop No.1 till the further orders. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in possession of Shop 2 ao788-10 No.1 and, therefore, the ad­interim relief ought to have been granted. 2. The impugned order has been passed on 10th June, 2010 which is an ad­interim order. The Notice of Motion is ready for final hearing. After lapse of more than 7 to 8 months, as of today, it is not possible to interfere with discretionary order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. The Notice of Motion shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 20th June, 2011. 3. All contentions of the parties on merits of the Notice of Motion are expressly kept open and the Notice of Motion shall be decided without being influenced by the ad­interim order. 4. Civil Application No.982 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE