1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2849 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO. 2849 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO. 2849 OF 2007. IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.867 OF 2006. APPEAL NO.867 OF 2006. APPEAL NO.867 OF 2006. Mary Joy Pawar : Appellant. versus Shri Ashok Ram : Respondent. Mr.Kishor Patil for the appellant. Smt.Sucharita Patra for the respondent. WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2132 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.2132 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.2132 OF 2007. IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.867 OF 2006. APPEAL NO.867 OF 2006. APPEAL NO.867 OF 2006. Shri Ashok Ram : Applicant. versus Mary Joy Pawar : Respondent. Smt.Sucharita Patra for the applicant. Mr.Kishor Patil for the respondent. 2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. : S.S.SHINDE, J. : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATED DATED DATED : APRIL 24, 2008. : APRIL 24, 2008. : APRIL 24, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Rule in both the civil applications. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides in both the civil applications.. 3. Civil Application No.2849 of 2007 is filed by the original appellant for restoration of her Civil Application No.825 of 2006 which was dismissed for default on 23.2.2007. The order dismissing the Civil Application No.825 of 2006 on 23.2.2007 reads thus :- "Office noting shows that on 19th January 2007 none appeared for the Applicant and the Application was adjourned till today. Today when the application is called out none appears for the Applicant. The advocate for the Respondent is present. Hence dismissed for default." There is a delay in filing the Civil Application 3 No.2849 of 2007 also. 4. It reveals from the record that this court on 07/06/2007 has passed the following equitable order in Civil Application No.2132 of 2007 which reads thus:- (i) At present the claim of Respondent/Defendant Ashok for forcible possession is not granted. (ii) The Appellant/Plaintiff Mary shall be allowed to continue in possession pending the appeal as the Court Receiver’s agent upon payment of royalty of Rs.6,000/-. (iii) She shall pay the royalty from the month of June, 2007. Royalty shall be paid on or before 20th of each month commencing from 20th June 2007. If she fails to pay the royalty for continuing in possession as Court Receiver’s agent, the application of the Respondent/Defendant Ashok shall be considered. (iv) The Appellant Mary shall serve the application for restoration upon the Advocate 4 for the Respondent Ashok forthwith. At present both the applications are stood over till 4th July 2007." The learned advocate appearing for the original appellant fairly concedes that there is no compliance to the order dated 7th June 2007 passed by this Court. 5. I have carefully gone through the contents of the civil application. I refrain to entertain this civil application. While rejecting the application of the appellant for restoration of earlier Civil Application No.825 of 2006, I have taken into consideration the order passed by this Court on 7th June 2007. Hence the Rule is discharged. Civil Application No.2849 of 2007 is disposed of accordingly. 6. Civil Application No.2132 of 2007 is filed by the original respondent in an appeal for directions to the Court Receiver to take the forcible possession of the suit flat from the Respondent (Original Appellant) or any other person found therein by breaking open the lock of the suit flat with the help of the Dongri Police Station and by recording necessary inventory and panchanama. 5 7. In para 7 of the Civil Application No.2132 of 2007 it is stated that the Civil Application for stay bearing No.825 of 2005 under which the status quo order was passed is dismissed for default. Hence the Court Receiver is also discharged automatically and the status quo order is also vacated. 8. Taking into consideration para 7 of the Civil Application No.2132 of 2007 and in view of the fact that Civil Application No.2849 of 2007, filed by the appellant for restoration of her earlier Civil Application No.825 of 2006, is already rejected, the prayers in this Civil Application No.2132 of 2007 cannot be granted. Hence the Rule stands discharged. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy for executing the decree of the Civil Court. [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, [S.S.SHINDE, J] J] J]