IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 860 OF 2006 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO. 3188 OF 2005 M/s. Arvindkumar Maganlal & Co. ......Appellants/Orig.Plffs v.s. M/s. Jignesh & Co.and Ors. .....Respondents/Orig.Defendants AND M/s. Rikita Enterprises Pvt.Ltd .....Respondent/Orig.Respondents. ------- Mr. Sanjay Jain with Ms. Gada i/by. Harakchand & Co.Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. V.V. Kanade i/by. H.V. Kode, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2010. P.C. :- 1. An ad-interim order was passed in Notice of Motion No. 3670 of 2005 on 1st December, 2005. Notice of Motion No. 860 of 2006 was taken out for vacating that ad-interim order. By order dated 22nd November, 2006, Notice of Motion No. 860 of 2006 was allowed and the ad-interim order dated 1st December, 2005 was set aside. So far as, original Notice of Motion No. 3670 of 2005 is concerned, it has been disposed off by order dated 25th June, 2007. That Notice of Motion was for attachement before judgment. The court found that during the pendency of that Motion because of an order passed in Summons for Judgement, conditional leave to defend the suit was granted to the defendants. The defendants did not deposit the amount and therefore the suit has been decreed. As the suit has been decreed, there was no question of deciding the Motion which was for attachment before judgment. Now as the original Notice of Motion has been disposed on 25th June, 2007 the Appeal filed against an order vacating ad-interim order, obviously has become infructuous. Hence, Appeal disposed off. [D.K. DESHMUKH, J] [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]