1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO.2581/2008 Mrs.Hanifa Abdul Razak Memon. ..Petitioner. -VERSUS- Amina Abbasbhoy Carrimjee and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Mr.Sayeed Akhtar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Shiraz Rustomjee, Ms.Prembhari Thakkar and Ms.Shoma Maitra, i/b M/s Desai Desai & Carrimjee & Mulla, for the Respondents Nos.1 to 5. Mr.R.F.Lambay with Afraz, D.A. Dube, for the Respondent No.7/CBI. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the Respondents Nos.8 and 9. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 17th APRIL, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule. The Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing at this stage itself. 2. The Petitioner is the original Appellant in Appeal No.688/2007 which is challenging the decree dated 03.07.2007 in Suit bearing RAE & R. Suit No.838/1800 of 1994. 3. The suit was instituted by the Respondents to the appeal and the Appellant is the original Defendant No.1 therein. 4. The Appellant challenges the Decree for Eviction and prayed for interim stay before the lower Appellate Court. That 2 application having been dismissed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard Shri Godbole appearing for the original Appellant/Defendant and Shri Rustomjee appearing for the Plaintiffs/Decree Holders. I have also heard Shri Lambay appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation which was put to notice during the pendency of this petition because the property in question was attached by a Criminal Court at the instance of the prosecution. 6. That aspect has been amply clarified by the affidavit filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and Shri Lambay has stated on instructions that he submits to the orders of this Court. Hence, the impediment in law if any in proceeding with this Writ Petition is removed and that is how Writ Petition is taken up for hearing by me. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and perusing the impugned order with their assistance, what is apparent is that the lower Appellate Court could have made an equitable order and disposed of the stay application so as not to prejudice the rights of the parties. Having held, prima facie, that the suit property is in possession of the Receiver, the lower Appellate Court could have made some appropriate arrangement till the appeal is decided on merits. Instead in a lengthy order which is uncalled for at a stage at which the matter was before the lower Appellate Court, it discussed the rival contentions on merits. Be that as it may, both sides agree before me that the following order 3 would meet the ends of justice:- (i)The Receiver who is in possession of the suit property shall continue in possession thereof subject, of course, to the further directions of the lower Appellate Court. (ii)The lower Appellate Court to hear and dispose of the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31st July, 2009. If the appeal could not be disposed of for any reason by 15th July 2009, the lower Appellate Court shall permit the Decree Holder to be put in possession as an Agent of the Receiver without any security and without payment of royalty but subject to the payment of taxes and costs, charges and expenses of the Receiver till final orders in the appeal. (iii)The lower Appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order and on merits in the above time frame. (iv)Both sides shall co-operate in disposal of the appeal by not seeking unnecessary adjournment of the appeal. Needless to state that the order under challenge stands set aside and is substituted with the above order and direction. (v)The parties to abide by this order and act on an authenticated copy of the same. (vi)The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. JUDGE