1 fa353 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.353 OF 2011 Kaniyalal Musai Vishwakarma @ Kaniyalal Musai Sutar ...Appellant vs. Panchalal Musai Vishwakarma ...Respondent Mr.Omprakash Pandey i/b M/s.Pandey & Co.for the appellant Mr.S.H.Bohra for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 4,2011 P.C.: 1 The challenge in this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) is to the orders passed by the trial Court on Notices of Motion no.1115/2010 and 1708/2010. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the notice of motion no.1115/2010 was not taken out under section 144 of the said Code but it is taken out under section 141 of the said Code. 2 Looking to the prayers made in the notice of motion no.1115/2010, the order passed thereon cannot be said to be a decree within the meaning of section 2 (2) of the said Code especially when the counsel for the defendant states that section 144 of the said Code was not invoked. Notice of motion no.1708/2010 was taken out by the appellant for setting aside the order passed on notice of motion no.1115/2010. Hence, the order passed even on the said notice of motion cannot be a decree. Hence, First Appeal is not maintainable and the same is dismissed only on the ground that it is not maintainable. However, 2 fa353 remedy of the appellant is kept open. Civil application no.621 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 3 On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant, ad-interim relief granted on 22nd February 2011 will continue to operate for a period of two weeks from today. JUDGE