1 caf845 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.845 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.449 OF 2011 Rekha Girish Khambolja ...Applicant vs. Shantabai Ramanlal Dave @ Khambolja & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain with Mr.N.S.Shaikh i/b M/s.S.K.Srivastav & Co. for the applicant Mr.Ajit Kenjale for the respondent no.1 Mr.V.S.Kapse for respondent no.2 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned counsel for respondent no.2. The prayer in this application is for grant of stay to the execution and operation of the impugned decree and for injunction. 2 The operative part of the impugned decree reads thus : Suit is decreed only against defendant nos.1 and 2 with no costs. It is hereby declared that plaintiff is the sole owner of the suit property. . Both defendant nos.1 and 2 are hereby restrained by an order of perpetual injunction 2 caf845 that they themselves or through anybody else claiming on their behalf, shall not cause any obstruction, interference in possession of plaintiff, over the suit property. . Suit is dismissed as against defendant nos. 3 and 4 with no costs. 3 As the respondent no.1-plaintiff is in possession, the prayer for stay cannot be acceded to. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the declaration of ownership granted in favour of the respondent no.1 will be used in other proceedings. The First Appeal challenging the decree has been already admitted and it is obvious that the decree of the Trial Court is subject to final outcome of the appeal. 4 The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that the respondent no.1 has no intention to create any further third party rights in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the Appeal. Statement is accepted. In view of this statement, it is not necessary to grant interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). 5 Hence, application is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Prayer (a) is rejected subject to clarification made above. ii)Prayer (b) is not granted in view of the statement made by the respondent no.1. JUDGE