1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.1150 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.1780 OF 1993 Vijay Enterprises ...Appellants v/s Gopinath Mahadev Koli and others ...Respondents Mr U.J. Makhija i/b M/s Bagla Dandekar and Co. for Appellants. Mr P.G. Lad for Respondent No.1. Mr Deepak Chitnis i/b M/s Chitnis Vaity and Co. for Respondent Nos.3,5,8,10,12 to 25. Mr P.V. Bhagat i/b M/s Vasant and Co. for Respondent No.6. Ms S.M. Dandekar, AGP for State. WITH APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2005 2 IN L.A.R.NO.3 OF 1997 Vijay Enterprises ...Appellants v/s Gopinath Mahadev Koli and othes ...Respondents Mr U.J. Makhija i/b M/s Bagla Dandekar and Co. for Appellants. Mr P.G. Lad for Respondent No.1. Mr Deepak Chitnis i/b M/s Chitnis Vaity and Co. for Respondent Nos.3,8,10,17,19 to 27. Mr P.V. Bhagat i/b M/s Vasant and Co. for Respondent No.5. Ms S.M. Dandekar, AGP for State. WITH APPEAL NO.78 OF 2006 IN L.A.R.NO.3 OF 1997 IN CASE NO.LAQ 369/2 3 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1302 OF 2006 AND CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.459 OF 2010 Gopinath Mahadev Koli and others ...Appellants v/s M/s Shreenath Builders and others ...Respondents Mr P.V. Bhagat i/b M/s Vasant and Co. for Appellants. Mr U.J. Makhija i/b M/s Bagla Dandekar and Co. for Respondent No.2. Mr Deepak Chitnis i/b M/s Chitnis Vaity and Co. for Respondent Nos.3 to 10,13 to 25. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.V. MORE JJ. DATE : 6TH MAY 2010. P.C. :- 1] Both the sides have moved for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 20th April 2010. The corrections sought by the respondent No.29 is for 4 insertion of word  not in paragraph 15. Nobody has any objection to that, therefore that correction is permitted. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that the order for refund of money paid was not to be made by consent of parties and that we have wrongly mentioned that the order is by consent of the parties. This position is disputed by the respo0ndents and therefore, obviously in speaking to the minutes, that correction cannot be made. At this stage, a request is made that the appellants had requested for continuation of the interim order that was operating during the pendency of the appeals. There is dispute between the parties about the nature of the order, whether it was interim order or not. As we found no substance in appeals and they are disposed off on merits, in our opinion, it will not be appropriate for us to continue any interim order. The appearance of respondent No.6 in appeal No.1150 of 2005 is for respondent No.5 in appeal No.1151 of 2005 and appellant in appeal No.78 of 2006 be shown as Mr P.V. Bhagat instead of Mr Vasant Bhagat. 5 Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE R.V. MORE)