1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5925 OF 2009 Mr. Ramakrishna Janardan Karandikar, since deceased, through his legal heirs - 1) Smt. Shailaja Laxman Soman & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs Smt. Sushma R. Pabri. .. Respondent -- AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5926 OF 2009 Mr. Ramakrishna Janardan Karandikar, since deceased, through his legal heirs - 1) Smt. Shailaja Laxman Soman & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs Smt. Anjali Dilip Agate. .. Respondent -- Shri P.M. Arjunwadkar for the Petitioners in both the Petitions. Shri T.D. Kale for the Respondents in both the Petitions. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th February, 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the Petitions, the same are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The Petitioners filed two separate 2 suits for possession against the Respondents in the Writ Petitions. The suits were decreed by the trial Court. The Appeals were preferred by the Respondents in these Petitions. By the common judgment and order dated 4th November, 2008, the Appeals were dismissed. The limited challenge in these Writ Petitions is to the Clause (ii) of the operative part of the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court, which reads thus:- “(ii) However, the decree passed against the defendants be executed after decision on the appeals bearing Stamp No.13986 of 2006 and 13987 of 2006.” 2. It must be stated here that apart from the suits filed by the Petitioners for possession, there were two other suits filed by the Respondents which were heard along with the suits filed by the Petitioners. While passing a decree in the suits filed by the Petitioners, the other two suits were dismissed and being aggrieved by the disposal of the said suits, the Respondents have preferred the First Appeals in this Court. The delay in preferring the First Appeals has been condoned and the Appeals are pending for admission. 3. As far as Clause (ii) of the operative part of the impugned judgment and orders is concerned, the Appellate Court could not have directed that the decree for possession can be executed only after the decision of the First Appeals preferred by the Respondents. It was for the 3 Respondents to challenge the decrees for possession passed against them. The Respondents can always apply for appropriate interim relief in the pending First Appeals. However, while confirming the decrees for possession, the direction contained in Clause (ii) of the operative part of the impugned judgment and orders could not have been passed. 4. Hence, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by passing following order. (a) Clause (ii) of the operative part of the impugned judgment and orders stand deleted. (b) This order will not preclude the Respondents from filing an application for claiming appropriate interim relief in the pending First Appeals. (c) It is made clear that no adjudication is made by this Court on the merits of the judgments and decrees passed in the suits between the parties. (d) It is made clear that all objections of the Petitioners to the application for interim relief which may be made by the Respondents are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J) ash