1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (CAZ) No. 480 of 2011 in L. P. A. No. 569 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 3375 of 2010 (d) Ganesh Jagannath Chaukse VERSUS Prabhakar Wasudeo Tikar and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R. D. Najbile, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Advocate for the Resp. nos.1 to 4/applicants. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 27th JULY, 2011. Heard Mr. R. D. Najbile, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4. By this civil application the applicants/ respondent nos.1 to 4 seek vacation of the ad-interim relief, which is granted in favour of the appellants by the order dated 05.04.2011. The applicants/respondent nos.1 to 4 are the original plaintiffs. A civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the present appellant for a declaration that they have a right of way through the fields of the appellant and the appellant was illegally preventing the applicants from using the right of way. An application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiffs/applicants. The Trial Court 2 allowed the injunction application and restrained the appellant from preventing the plaintiffs/applicants from using the right of way. An appeal was filed by the appellant against the order granting temporary injunction in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs. During the pendency of the appeal, no stay was granted in favour of the appellant. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 13.07.2010. A writ petition was filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Trial Court and the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court on 13.07.2010. In the writ petition also, there was no stay operating in favour of the appellant. However, when the matter came up before this Court for admission on 05.04.2011, this Court admitted the Letters Patent Appeal and granted ad-interim relief in terms of the prayer clause. The applicants have sought the vacation of the ad-interim relief granted in favour of the appellant. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that it is necessary to vacate the ad-interim relief granted in favour of the appellant on 05.04.2011. Though, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the ad-interim relief granted on 05.04.2011 should not be vacated as the applicants were not present on 05.04.2011 and the ad-interim relief was confirmed, the same is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the order dated 05.04.2011 granted Rule on interim relief, making it returnable on 10.04.2011 and in the meanwhile, had 3 granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause. Even otherwise, it is necessary to note that the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants was allowed and in the appeal and the writ petition, filed by the appellant, the appellate Court and this Court had not granted any interim relief in favour of the appellant. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer made in the civil application is granted. Ad-interim relief granted in favour of the appellant by an order dated 05.04.2011 is vacated. The civil application is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale