: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1679 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.588 OF 1992 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s Orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Sandeep Waghmare h/f Mr.V.L.Kankaria for applicant Ms A.R.S.Baxi for respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) Mr.G.S.Godbole for respondent no.3 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2005 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Sandeep Waghmare holding for Mr.Kankaria for the applicant and Ms Baxi for the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) and Mr.G.S.Godbole for respondent no.3. 2. Evidently the Second Appeal No.588 of 1992 is admitted in the year 1992 itself and this application for injunction against the respondent no.3 is moved in 2004. There is absolutely no reason : 2 : mentioned that why the delay is caused, especially when the respondent no.3 who was not party to the original dispute. In view of this aspect the application for injunction against the respondent no.3 cannot be entertained. The contents of the application also do not reveal as to why such interim emergent relief is required after the period of 12 years. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances the application is dismissed with no order as to costs.