1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4403 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1421 OF 2009 IN BCCC SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.2199 OF 2005 N.H. Harsora Private Limited & Anr. )..Applicants Vs. Kusum Narottam Harsora & Anr. )..Respondents ---- Ms.Deepti Panda i/by M/s.Purnanand & Co. for the applicants. Miss.Neha Choksi i/by M/s.L.J.Law for the respondent nos.1 & 2. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 22nd January, 2010 PC 1 This is an application seeking continuation of the interim order which was operating during the pendency of the suit. The alternate prayer is for a direction restraining the respondents, their servants and agents from dis-possessing the applicants from the suit premises save and except by due process of law. That order has been passed on 13.3.2006 and continued to operate till the suit was decreed on 2.9.2009. In this appeal also on 25.9.2009 Mr. Jain appearing for the respondents/original defendants made a statement that he will not take any steps to dis-possesses the appellants without following due process of law. 2 On behalf of the respondents it is contended that they are shareholders of appellant 2 no.1 company and in the circumstances, they should be allowed ingress and agress in to the premises. This was also the contention that had been raised in the suit at the stage of passing of interim order and was referred to by the trial Court in the order granting interim relief pending the suit. Before the trial Court the appellants/plaintiffs had also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession but that injunction was not granted on the footing that respondents as shareholders might visit the suit premises. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause-(b). It is however, made clear that the respondents will be permitted to visit the suit premises for any purpose connected with their shareholding of the appellant no.1 company. It is also seen that the respondents have challenged the Will by which tenancy rights have been bequeathed by the appellant no.1 company. The said Will has been contested by them in a separate proceedings pending in this Court. In case the Will is invalidated, liberty to the respondents to apply for further reliefs relating to ingress and agress into the suit premises in accordance with their rights that may flow if the Will is invalidated. Civil Application stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4