1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.581 OF 2010 Smt.Sushila Balu Parvate & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. M/s.Stalion Properties Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rakesh Kumar with Soni Kumari with Vijendra Jabra for the petitioners Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.V.V.Mishra for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order, the Appeal Bench of Court of Small Causes has granted interim relief pending appeals preferred by the respondents. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that stay could not have been granted as the appeals are not maintainable. His submission is that proviso to Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 has not been followed. 3 It is not in dispute that now the Appeals have been finally heard and the same are fixed on 19 th April 2010 for pronouncement of Judgment. The impugned order was to operate till the final disposal of the Appeals. As the appeals are already heard and the Judgment is awaited, no interference can be made at this stage in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Petition is rejected. 2 4 However, all contentions of the petitioners are kept open. 5 It is obvious that the issue regarding maintainability of the Appeals is bound to be decided by the Appellate Court while deciding the Appeals. JUDGE