1 caf1644-45-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1644 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1331 OF 2011 Mahesh M. Dehia & Anr. .. Applicants V/s. Hasmukh L. Shah & Ors. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1645 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1328 OF 2011 Sunil T. Bharadkar .. Applicant V/s. Hasmukh L. Shah & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. R. A. Thorat i/b. Mr. P. J. Thorat for the appellant in both the applications. Mr. Kevic Setalvad with Mr. Dhiren Shah and Mr. Som Sinha i/b. M/s. Vimla & Co. for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. These applications have been filed by the appellants in the Appeals. By a common Judgment delivered by the trial Court, Cross Suits filed by the parties have been decided. The Suit filed by the respondents has been decreed and the Suits filed by the applicants have been dismissed. 2 caf1644-45-11 2. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants invited attention of the Court to interim order dated 30-31st January, 2003 passed by the trial Court during the pendency of the suits on the Notices of Motion taken out by the applicants as well as by the respondents. His prayer is that the interim arrangement made during the pendency of the Suits may be continued till the disposal of the Appeals. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer. He submitted that though after passing of the decree, the board on the suit property in respect of which interim relief was granted by the trial Court has been removed, the respondents shall re-install the said board at its original place. He states that the board shall be re- installed within a period of one week from today. 3. By the impugned Judgments and Decrees, the trial Court has held that the respondents are in possession. Their possession has been protected by granting limited perpetual injunction restraining the applicants from disturbing the possession without following due process of law. The applicants have been restrained from displaying the sign board of their names in the suit property without due process of law. 4. Considering the findings recorded by the trial Court, though the decree of injunction passed by the trial Court 3 caf1644-45-11 cannot be stayed, a limited protection deserves to be granted to the applicants in respect of the board which the respondents have agreed to re-install. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants prays that prayer (b) of Notice of Motion No. 3002 of 2002 which was granted by the trial Court be granted by way of interim relief. As of today, there is no permission granted by the Municipal Corporation to the applicants for carrying out the work referred to in prayer (b). Therefore, as of today, the prayer cannot be considered and it is for the appellants to file appropriate proceedings after permission is granted by the Municipal Corporation. 5. Hence, Applications are disposed of by passing following order: :: O R D E R :: i. The prayer for stay of execution and operation of the impugned Judgments and decrees is rejected. ii. The statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions that the board shall be re-erected at its original place within a period of one week from today is accepted. 4 caf1644-45-11 iii. Interim injunction granted during the pendency of the suits in terms of prayer clause (a) of Notice of Motion No.3002 of 2002 in S.C. Suit No.3994 of 2002 shall continue to operate as interim relief till the disposal of the Appeals. iv. As regards the prayer for interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (b) of the Notice of Motion No.3002 of 2002, a liberty granted to the applicants as recorded in the earlier part of the order. (A.S.OKA, J.)