1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2300 OF 2010 Ramdhiraj Laxman Dhobi (since deceased) Ramsharan Laxman Dhobi ...Petitioner vs. Ramdas Bihari Dhobi (since deceased) 1a Shyamkala w/o Ramdas Dhobi (since deceased) 1b Kishorekumar s/o Ramdas Dhobi ...Respondent Mr.V.T.Lulla for the petitioner Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.V.V.Mishra for respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C.: 1 The petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. In a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the petitioner in the year 1981, there was no interim relief operating in favour of the petitioner. The suit was decreed on 15 th January 2010 and a decree for perpetual injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the respondents. The appeal has been admitted. In the Appeal there was an application for stay made by the respondents. By the impugned order, the Appeal Bench of Court of Small Causes has allowed the application made by the respondents for stay of execution of the decree. However, the Appeal Bench clarified that the parties will be bound by the order passed by this Court in Civil Application no.2178 of 1994 in First Appeal no.104 of 1994 passed on 28 th April 1994. By the 2 said order of this Court, a limited injunction has been granted in favour of the 1 st petitioner and others restraining the respondents in the said Civil Application no.2178 of 1994 from preventing or obstructing the petitioner and two others from washing clothes of their customers at Dhobi Ghat. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there may not any interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner, during the pendency of the suit, on appreciation of evidence, a decree for injunction was passed which permits the respondents to adopt due process of law for dispossessing the Petitioner from the suit property. He submitted that the said decree could not have been stayed by the Appellate Court. He submitted that the protection granted in order dated 28 th April 1994 in favour of the petitioner is very limited protection which prevents the respondents from obstructing the petitioner from washing clothes his customers at Dhobi Ghat. 3 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In a suit filed in the year 1981, admittedly there was no temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. The suit was decided after 19 years. A decree of injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner for the first time after lapse of 19 years. The Appellate Court has exercised discretionary power under Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by granting stay of execution of the decree especially in the light of fact that there was no interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of 19 years. The Appellate Court has taken care to clarify that though decree of injunction will remain stayed, the parties will be bound by the order dated 28 th 3 April 1994 passed by this Court. 4 It is not possible to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Appellate Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is rejected. It is however made clear that all contentions of the parties on merits of the Appeal are kept open. The Appeal shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. It is obvious that the observations made in this order are tentative observations. JUDGE