1 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L)NO. 367 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 714 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 508 OF 2008 Mr. Mukesh Nagindas Vora and others .. Appellants Versus Mr. Karim Vora and others .. Respondents Mr. Prem Gidwani, i/by Satyan Israni for the appellants Mr. D.H. Mehta a/w Mr. Dhawal Mehta i/b D.M.Legal Associates for respondents 1, 3 and 4 Mr. Darshan Mehta a/w Ms. Trupti Shetty i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for respondents 2, 6 and 8 CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 25 th February, 2010 P.C.: 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 31 st March, 2008 passed by the learned Trial Judge in Notice of Motion No. 714 of 2008 filed in Suit No. 508 of 2008 and thereby declining to grant any ad interim relief. The Motion is still pending. 2. Learned Advocates for the parties also stated that the arbitral 2 proceedings are pending and the next appearance before the Arbitrator is on 14 th March, 2010. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, more so, when the Notice of Motion is still pending. However, the learned counsel for the appellant expressed apprehensions that the prima facie observations made in the impugned order regarding maintainability of the suit may come in his way while deciding the pending Notice of Motion. 3. We make it clear that the Notice of Motion is required to be decided on its own merits and the observations made on the point of jurisdiction in the order are only prima facie observations. If an application under Section 9-A or Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil procedure Code is moved on the issue of jurisdiction, certainly it will have to be considered on its own merit by following due procedure. 4. Save and except the above clarifications, the appeal stands dismissed. (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)