1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 356 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.244 OF 2009 Indubai Vishnu Kokate ..Applicant/Appellant versus Sindhutai Father Shamrao Patil Rukade Sindhutai Vishnu Kokate ..Respondent Mr.G.B.Pawar for the applicant Mr.G.H.Keluskar for the respondents CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. The applicants herein instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli being Special Civil Suit No.256 of 2001 for declaration that the deed executed in favour of the respondent should be declared as null and void and the applicant sought possession. Though suit was filed on 15.12.2001 it was decided on 2 5.8.2002. Thereafter this first appeal has been filed in the year 2009. 2. The applicant wants that the respondent should be restrained from creating third party right and by prayer clause (a) the applicant wants that the operation of the decree dated 5.8.2008 be stayed. Affidavit in reply is filed by learned Advocate Mr.Keluskar. 3. I have heard learned Advocates on both the sides. It must be mentioned that right from the date of the institution of the suit viz. since December 2001 till disposal of the suit in August 2008 i.e. for 7 years and thereafter till the admission of the appeal there is no Order operating against the respondent so as to have restrictions on the respondent as regards creating third party right etc. The present civil application is filed in January 2009. In this civil application except vague averments that the respondent is likely to dispose of the suit property, there is no specific 3 averment so as to say that the applicants have made out a prima facie case that the respondent is likely to dispose of the property. 4. My attention was drawn by learned Advocate Mr.Pawar to the affidavit in reply filed by learned Advocate Mr.Keluskar where it is stated in paragraph 2 that the respondent may require to lease the property or transfer the same for her livelihood. However, there is no immediate plan to do so. 5. If the wording appearing in the affidavit in reply there is no immediate plan to do so are read, it is clear that the respondent as of today is not inclined to transfer the property. As such, there is no immediate danger to the applicant. In my view, on the basis of the record, the applicant has not been able to make out a case that the respondent is likely to create third party rights. Needless to mention that in future, if the applicant gathers material to show that the 4 respondent is likely to create third party rights, it will be open for the applicant to file a proper application. Considering the fact that the suit came to be dismissed, there is no question of staying the said judgment and decree dated 5.8.2008 by which the suit came to be dismissed. Hence the Order. ORDER Civil application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)