1 ca1750.08 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1750 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 668 OF 2008 Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ....Applicant. Vs. Sou. Gracy Avelin Dantas & Ors. ....Respondents Mr. Vikram Chavan i/b. YKS Legal, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.G.Karandikar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Milind Parab, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 7(1) & 7(2). CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- JULY 8, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Vikaram Chavan, Advocate for the Applicant and Mr. S.G. Karandikar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Parab, Advocate for Respondent No. 7(1) and 7(2). Other Respondents are served. In fact, the Respondent No. 1 is the only contesting Respondent who is the original Plaintiff in RCS No. 2 of 1993 and Appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2004 filed in the District Court, Sindhudurg, at Oros. The Trial Court had partly decreed the suit whereas the Appellate Court has allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 and passed the following order : 2 ca1750.08 “ORDER (1)The appeal stands allowed and the across objection of respondent No. 6, stands allowed. (2)The cross objections of respondents 1 to 5 and 7 stands dismissed. (3)The impugned notice dtd. 28.12.1992 is hereby declared bad in law and is not binding on the appellant. (4)The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 are hereby restrained from obstructing the appellant from use and enjoyment of the suit Kiosk and the land beneath it in perpetuity unless by due process of law. (5)In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.” 2. Though this Appeal was admitted by Order dated 10th December, 2009, no ad-interim relief has been granted in the Civil Application. Thus, the decree as against Applicant is operating for last almost 3 years. Even otherwise, perusal of clause 4 of the operating order of the District Court clearly shows that the injunction is qualified and the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 in the Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2004 were restrained by injunction from obstructing the Appellant therein from use and enjoyment of the suit Kiosk and the land beneath without following “due process of law”. Thus, the said Decree does not preclude the Applicant from following due process of law. No case is made out for grant of interim relief of staying the aforesaid Decree of the District Court, Sindhudurg at Oros. Civil Application is dismissed. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)