1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No.596 of 2010 In Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.1412 of 2009 (Decided vide judgment dated 30-4-2010) In Letters Patent Appeal No.373 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.700 of 2009 (Decided vide Judgment dated 19-6-2009) (Meerabai Shankar Gajbe v. Suman w/o Parmeshwar Rangari and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri S.W. Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri D.B. Yengal, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Coram : A.H. Joshi & P.B. Varale, JJ. Dated : 6th May, 2010 1. This Court has rejected the Misc. Civil Application No.1412 of 2009 for review by judgment dated 30-4-2010. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking the relief as follows : “(A) Grant stay to the judgment dated 30th April, 2010 delivered in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.1412/2009 in 2 LPA No.373/2009 and continue the interim order granted on 24.7.2009 in LPA No.373/2009 for a further period of about 12 weeks from the date of the order passed on this application.” 3. The applicant herein had filed Letters Patent Appeal and application for leave to appeal, etc. This Court had granted order of status quo in Civil Application No.486 of 2009 which was filed in said Letters Patent Appeal, on 24-7-2009. This order of status quo remained in operation till dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, till 26-11-2009. 4. By order dated 9-12-2009, status quo which was in operation during pendency of Letters Patent Appeal was continued by granting ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) of Misc. Civil Application No.1412 of 2009. 5. Heard respective Advocates on the point of continuation of order of stay for enabling the applicant to have breathing time, till applicant approaches Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant desires to approach Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, due to ensuing summar vacations to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be anticipated as to when the petition for leave to appeal could be listed before Hon'ble Supreme Court, during vacation. He, therefore, submits that the status quo as was in force during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal and review 3 application needs to be continued. 7. This Court has considered at length all submissions advanced by the applicant while arguing the application for review. 8. This Court has to consider the background and merits of the case while considering the point as to whether after the dismissal of the review application, the status quo order as was in force should be continued. 9. It is seen that since the review application has been dismissed by a reasoned order. It is also seen that the applicant does not have any case to get continuation of the status quo order any day further. 10. Considering the fact that the office which came to the applicant fortuitously, she is keen on sticking to it any any cost and by leaving no stone unturned. 11. Therefore, neither law nor equity favours with the applicant. In the result, the application is rejected. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear own costs. Judge Judge pdl