1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.417 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2153 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2172 OF 2007 Abdul Samad Haji Adam Kantharia .. Appellant Vs. Noorjahan Shahid Dawood & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.V. Kanade with Mr.Shrivardhan Deshpande i/b M/s.Negandhi, Shah and Himayatullah for the appellants CORAM : J. N. PATEL & Smt.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The appellant is the original defendant no.1 who has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge on 17.10.2008 and 20.10.2008 in Notice of Motion No.2153 of 2008. Amittedly, the appellant who is the original defendant no.1 has alienated the property in favour of original defendant no.2. We do 2 not think that in the given facts and circumstances particularly when the plaintiff has filed a suit for enforcing her right of preemption from defendant no.1 who has already alienated the property in favour of original defenant no.2, the defendant no.1 is not at all effected by the impugned order. 3. The impugned order merely preserves the statusquo of the property and therefore, we do not find that it calls for any interference by this court in appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant (original defenant no.1) states that the observations made in the impugned order may adversely affect the merits of the matter at the time of decision of the suit. In our view, this is a misapprehension on the part of the appellant as the interim order is passed on the court being prima facie satisfied and all observations made by the learned single Judge while passing the impugned order do not decide the lis on merits. ( J. N. Patel, J) (Smt.R.P.Sondurbaldota, J)