1 6 cas.943.09 ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 943 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 274 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the Applicants. Mr. S.M.Railkar for Respondent Nos.1-A to 1-D, 1-F to 1-I, 2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30 th November, 2011. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1-A to 1-D, 1-F to 1-I, 2 and 3. 2 Perused the reply filed by the Respondents. The application is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents by pointing out that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Courts below, there was no interim relief granted in favour of the Applicants. He submitted that as at no stage there was any interim relief, the Applicants are 2 6 cas.943.09 not entitled to any injunction. 3 The Applicants are the original Plaintiffs. The trial Court passed a decree for possession in their favour. The Appeal Court has disturbed the said decree. In the reply, there is no categorical assertion that the Respondents do not intend to create any third party rights in respect of the suit property. As the second appeal has been admitted for final hearing, considering the reply filed by the Respondents, a limited interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) deserves to be granted. 4 As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the Respondents are in possession and therefore, it is not proper to grant prayer clause (c). 5 Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). [ A.S.OKA, J ]