:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7087 OF 2007 Mrs.Asha Pravin Satbhai and Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Smt.Shalini Narayan Dhamdhere and Ors. ....Respondents V.G.Peshave, Adv. for the petitioners. Jaydeep Deo Adv. for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 15th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Civil Appeal no. 305 of 2007 is pending. The order under challenge is an inter-locutory order delivered below Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-15 in this :2: :2: :2: pending Regular Civil Appeal. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the lower appellate court has refused any interim relief in their favour in the pending appeal, but, at the same time has allowed the Respondents to the Appeal to withdraw the sums which are deposited by the licensee, which is a company. That would greatly prejudice the case of the parties in the pending appeal. Allowing the respondents to withdraw the sums would mean that the lower Appellate court has expressed its desire and intention to confirm the Trial Court’s decree and, in that event, by the impugned order the Appeal is as good as decided. The leave and Licence agreement is dated 2.12.1999. 3. In my view, considering the fact that the petitioners have lost in the Trial Court, so also, the nature of relief that is claimed by them, it would not be fair to grant any interim orders in their favour in the pending Civil Appeal. At the same time, allowing the respondent to withdraw the sums deposited by the Company, at this stage would complicate the issue. In :3: :3: :3: case the petitioners/original appellants succeed, then, the parties may have to be directed to restore the sums and which would not be fair, just and proper considering the advanced age of the first respondent. 4. In these circumstances, the following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R . The General Manager M/s.Syngenta (India) Ltd. which is the Licensee Company is directed to deposit the licence fees/compensation under the Leave and Licence Agreement in the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall invest the said sum in a Fixed Deposit initially for a period of six months. The respondents are not permitted to withdraw the sums until the Appeal is heard and disposed off. . Hearing of Reg.Civil Appeal N. 305 of 2007 is expedited. If the paper books are :4: :4: :4: ready, then, the lower appellate court to endeavour and dispose off the said Appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event before 30.6.2008. 5. All contentions on merits are kept open. Petition is disposed off. No order as to costs. ********