-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.3799 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.3799 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.3799 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2007 Food Corporation of India ...Applicant vs. Chandrabhagabai w/o Kachru Panpatil Mahar & anr. ...Respondents AND AND AND CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION APPLICATION APPLICATION NO.4907 OF 2007 NO.4907 OF 2007 NO.4907 OF 2007 IN IN IN FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2007 Chandrabhagabai w/o Kachru Panpatil Mahar & anr. ...Applicants vs. Food Corporation of India ...Respondent Mr.V.G.Mujumdar for the Applicant in C.A.No.3799/2007 and for the Respondent No.1 in C.A.No.4907/2007 Ms S.R.Kumbhat i/b Mr.K.K.Tated for Respondent No.1 in C.A.NO.4907/2007 and for the Applicant in C.A.No.3799/2007 Mr.R.V.Desai, Sr.Advocate with Ms Nisha Valani for Respondent No.2 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 1, 2008 : FEBRUARY 1, 2008 : FEBRUARY 1, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Civil Application No.3799 of 2007 is preferred by the Appellant-the Food Corporation of India. The Appellant is the original second defendant. The Appellant has suffered a decree for possession. The Appeal challenging the said decree for possession has already been admitted. Therefore, the prayer -2- is for staying the execution of the decree. 2. Civil Application No.4907 of 2007 is preferred by the first Respondent in the Appeal who is the original plaintiff. The first prayer in the said Civil Application is for grant of injunction against the Appellant not to create third party interests and not to part with possession. The second prayer in the said application is for delivery of possession and the third prayer is for directing the Appellant to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- p.m. 3. The Submission of the learned counsel for the original plaintiff is that the plaintiff is an old lady who has succeeded the suit for possession and admittedly, the suit property is owned by her. Therefore, even if this court is inclined to grant stay to the execution of the decree for possession, the Appellant should be directed to pay compensation. 4. I have considered the submissions. As of today, there is no decree directing the payment of damages. In fact, there is a cross objection filed by the original plaintiff seeking the decree of damages. As the Appeal has been admitted for final hearing, the decree for possession cannot be allowed to be executed. However, prayer (a) of the Civil Application No.4907 of 2007 deserves to be granted. Hence, I pass the -3- following order : i) There will be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Civil Application No.3799 of 2007. ii) The Appellant/Applicant in Civil Application No.3799 of 2007 is hereby restrained from creating third party interests in respect of the suit property without seeking prior permission of this court. iii) Rest of the prayers in the Civil Application No.4907 of 2007 are rejected. iv) Hearing of the Appeal is expedited. Liberty to the original plaintiff to apply for fixing an early date of hearing after the Appeal is ready for hearing. v) Civil Application is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE