: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.379 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.693 OF 2008 IN S.C.SUIT NO.779 OF 2006 Rakesh S. Reddy ....Appellant V/s. P.V. Shreeram Reddy & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.H.S. Shreepad Murthy i/b Mr.D.R. Tiwari for the Appellant. Respondent No.1 present. Mr.O.P. Shukla for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. Admit and heard finally. 2. The learned Judge has refused to consider the Appellant/Plaintiff’s motion on the ground that earlier the status-quo order was passed. However, it is alleged in the fresh Notice of Motion that the status-quo order is being violated. The reliefs to enforce the status-quo order are therefore sought. 3. I am not considering the merits of the : 2 : contentions raised by the Plaintiff at all. Suffice it to state that the learned Judge ought to have considered the merits of the Notice of Motion and passed the orders thereon either at the ad-interim stage or at the interim stage as the case may be. It was not open to the learned Judge to refuse to hear the application. 4. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set-aside. The learned Judge will hear the Notice of Motion afresh, if moved for ad-interim or interim orders. Any application will be made only after notice to the advocates of all the parties at least three working days in advance.