1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.9926 Of 2009 In Second Appeal No.702 Of 2009 With Civil Application No.10581 Of 2009 In Second Appeal No.734 Of 2009 Govind S/o Gangaram Mergewar And Others. ... Applicants. Versus The Collector, Nanded And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. V.D. Patnoorkar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri. B.V. Wagh, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. Anil S. Shivpuje, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 6. -------- CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATE: 15th FEBRUARY 2010 2 PER COURT : 1) The applicants, original plaintiffs, have presented instant appeal. On perusal of the record it transpires that the suit presented by the plaintiffs was partly decreed by the trial Court. The defendant Nos.4 to 6 raised challenge to the decree passed by the trial Court by presenting Regular Civil Appeal No.83 of 2004. The appeal came to be allowed by the First Appellate Court on 27-7-2009 and the decree passed by the trial Court has been set aside. The original plaintiffs thus have approached this Court raising exception to the appellate decree. 2) Surprisingly in the instant second appeals applicants have prayed for grant of stay to the decree passed by the First Appellate Court thereby seeking revival of the 3 decree passed by the trial Court which in fact has been set aside by the First Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal. Such an order would be permissible only at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. By virtue of interlocutory orders, the dismissal of the suit, cannot be revived by granting stay to the operation of the appellate decree. 3) The Civil Application Nos.9926 of 2009 and 10581 of 2009 are itself misconceived and hence stand rejected. The applicants have liberty to present appropriate application for securing appropriate interim orders. The ad- interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. (R.M. BORDE, J.) rsl/ ca.9926.09