1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO.37 OF 2006 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1668 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.1467 OF 2005 Satish K. Kothari (HUF) & anr. Appellants vs. Smt.Darshan A. Mehta & ors. Respondents Mr.Ketan Parekh i/b.M/s.Vigil Juris for the appellants. Mr.S.A.Divan, Senior Counsel with Ms.Alpana Ghone, advocate i/b.M/s.Panchamati & Co. for the respondents 6 to 10. Ms.Lata Bachhani i/b.m/s.I.R.Joshi & Co. for the respondents 1 to 5. CORAM : R.M. LODHA & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 6th February 2006 P.C. Heard Mr.Ketan Parekh, the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 2. Prima facie, the material placed on record does not suggest that the property (item no.5 of Exhibit B to the plaint) belongs to the partnership firm. In view thereof, refusal by the learned motion Judge to grant any ad-interim order in respect of the said property cannot be faulted. 2 3. The appeal does not deserve to be admitted. 4. Dismissed in limine. (R. (R. (R. M. LODHA, J.) M. LODHA, J.) M. LODHA, J.) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. qMOHTA, J.) V. qMOHTA, J.) V. qMOHTA, J.)