1 CAF3192-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3192 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 720 OF 2008 Gangadhar Vinayak Pisat .. Applicant V/s. Yeshwant Vinayak Pisat & Ors. .. Respondents .... Mr. S. J. Chaurasia i/b. Mr. R. J. Singh & Co. for the applicant. Mr. D. M. Gupte for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 15, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the order of temporary injunction granted by this Court on 29th April, 2008 in Civil Application No. 1796 of 2008. Perused the sketch annexed on Page No.62. The premises described as Room No.2 on the said sketch is in possession of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The possession of the applicant over the remaining portion shown in the sketch has been protected under the order of injunction of this Court. As of today the order of temporary 2 CAF3192-09 injunction has become final. 2. Prayer (a) of this application reads thus : “That in furtherances to the Order dated 29.04.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Application No. 1796 of 2008 in First Appeal No. 720 of 2008, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Applicant to close the partition door between the suit premises and the residential premises in use, occupation and possession of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3;” 3. In order dated 24th January, 2011, a statement of learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents was recorded that the inter-connecting door between the Room No.2 and the suit premises as shown on the sketch on Page No.62 does not exist. Therefore, an officer of this Court was appointed as a Court Commissioner. The report of the Court Commissioner shows that the door is in existence. Hence, the statement of respondent Nos.2 and 3 which is recorded in order dated 24th January, 2001 appears to be incorrect. With a view to give complete effect to the interim order dated 29th April, 2008 passed by this Court, the second and third respondents will have to be restrained from opening the said door. At this stage, it is not necessary to grant prayer clause (b). 3 CAF3192-09 4. Hence, application is disposed of by passing following order : :: O R D E R :: i. Till the disposal of the Appeal, the second and third respondents are restrained from using or opening the door described in prayer clause (a) of this application. ii. The Court Commissioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,500/- deposited in this Court. iii. A prayer is made for operation of stay of this order. The prayer is rejected. JUDGE