KJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1098 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.145 OF 2009 Rajendra Bhagchand Chhajed .. Applicant Vs. M/s.Precision Forging & Stamping & Ors. .. Respondents ---- Mr.S. S. Kulkarni for the applicant. Mr.P .S.Dani i/by Ms.Hemakshi B. Gandhi for respondent nos.1 & 2. Ms.Rutuja V. Masurekar i/by M/s. Little & Co. for the respondent no.6. ---- CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J DATE : 21/7/2010 P. C.: 1 This is a Civil Application for review of my order dated 3.8.2009. In the said order, I had recorded that after hearing both the sides, since the parties were agreeable to an interim arrangement as recorded in the order, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the suit, the appeal can be disposed off by accepting the interim arrangement as suggested. Thereafter, I proceeded to record the interim arrangement. It is now contended that the appellant has not agreed to any interim arrangement. On KJ 2 the day when the order was passed, Mr. V. A.Thorat, Senior Advocate was appearing with Mr. S.S.Kulkarni for the appellant. Today, Mr. V. A. Thorat is not present in the Court and is not appearing in the matter. The appellant has stated on oath that he had not given consent as recorded in the order. Mr. S.S.Kulkarni the Advocate appearing for the appellant supports the contention of the appellant. It cannot be possible that the consents were recorded without anybody making a statement. It is possible however, that there might have been some misunderstanding in the understanding either on the part of the Advocate on record or the Counsel. Advocate for the appellant states that by recording of such consents, they are put to personal risk as their client may take action against them. It becomes difficult for the Court to precisely remember what exactly transpired in the Court after lapse of almost a year. 2 It is seen that consequent to the passing of the order, defendant no.5-MIDC has now executed a lease deed in favour of defendant nos.1 & 2. This is a step already undertaken and this KJ 3 step enures to the benefit of defendant nos.1 & 2. 3 Appeal from Order has been filed against dismissal of an interim injunction sought by the plaintiff vide his Application for grant of interim relief below Exhibit-5. 4 Advocate for the respondents vehemently opposes the review/withdrawal of the order dated 3.8.2009. He states that the statements as recorded were in fact made in his presence. 5 Taking in to account the fact that the statements could possibly have been made due to some mis-understanding on the part of the Advocate on record or his Counsel and also taking in to account the fact that the appellant contends that he did not consent, I am inclined to re-call the order dated 3.8.2009. However, I am not inclined to grant any ad-interim order during the pendency of the appeal. Appeal may be put before the regular Court. (R.S.MOHITE,J.)