1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1657 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4343 OF 2008 Jijabai Sopan Pawar .. Applicant. Vs. Kondiram Dhondiram Sabale & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.M.M.Sathaye for the applicant. Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the respondents. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 7TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sathaye, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Sabrad, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this civil application, the applicant i.e. original respondent in writ petition has prayed for vacating the interim order passed by this court on 15.7.2008 (R.V.More, J.). On 15.7.2008 this court after hearing learned counsel for the parties issued rule and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c). Prayer clause (c) in the writ petition reads thus: “(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present writ petition, the execution and/or implementation of the impugned order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Niphad Division, Niphad in R.T.S./Revision/150/2007 thereby confirming 2 the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Yeola in Vahivat Case No.1 of 2007, may kindly be ordered to be stayed.” 3. Mr.Sathaye, learned counsel for the applicant, who was heard when the rule was issued and interim relief was granted, invited my attention to the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the Civil Court at Yeola, on the application at Exhibit-48 in Regular Civil Suit No.22 of 2007 and submitted that this order was suppressed by the petitioner when the matter was argued for admission of the petition on 15th July, 2008. He submitted that in the order dated 23.10.2007 there is reference made to the orders impugned in the writ petition. The application at Exhibit-48 in R.C.S.No.22 of 2007 was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 for seeking an appointment of Court Commissioner. Merely because a reference was made in the order dated 23.10.2007 to the orders impugned in the petition, in my opinion, does not mean that the interim order passed by this court after hearing both the sides deserves to be vacated. It was open to the respondent, who was heard at that stage, to point out the order dated 23.10.2007 on which he is relying at this stage for seeking vacation of the interim relief. In the circumstances the civil application is rejected. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)