.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.29 OF 2009 AGAINST CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4854 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1857 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.25 OF 2009 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.29 OF 2009 Prakash Dhuru Shivalkar and another. ..Appellants. Versus Nandita D. Pednekar and 5 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.S.G.Kudle, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Pankaj Kowali, Advocate i/b. Ms.U.M.Jhaveri, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 13TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard. 2. In a First Appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in S.C.Suit No.644 of 2007, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25th November, 2008 .{2}. passed an interim orders. We find that the interim order does not call for interference in the given facts and circumstances. This is apart from the fact that, whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the order of the learned Single Judge in an Appeal. We are not inclined to interfere with the order. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Civil Application is also dismissed. [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]