1 4.cas1197.06 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1197 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 790 OF 2006 Shri Sambhaji Shankar Pawar & ors. ....Applicants. Vs. Smt. Malan Shivaji Pawar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Amit Borkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Kadam and Mr. Borkar. This Civil Application is filed by original Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 165 of 1988. The said Suit for declaration and partition was dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 319 of 1998 was also dismissed. Second Appeal is admitted on 9/4/2010. Civil Application is filed for stay of execution and operation of the impugned Judgment of the Appellate Court. By prayer (d), a prayer for directing the parties to maintain status quo is made. By an earlier order dated 18th March, 2011, the Advocate for the Applicants was directed to place on 2 4.cas1197.06 record copy of the interim order, if any, passed during pendency of the Suit as also Appeal before the District Court. Today an Application Exh. 19 in other Special Civil Suit No. 500 of 1998 is placed on record to show that the parties therein had agreed for stay of further proceedings in the said Special Civil Suit No. 500 of 1998 since the Appeal challenging the decree of dismissal of Special Civil Suit No. 165 of 1988 was pending. 2. Thus it is clear that, prima facie, there was no order of injunction operating in favour of the Appellant/original Plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 165 of 1988. Since there is no executable decree, prayer (c) cannot be granted and is rejected. In respect of the prayer (d), in the absence of any earlier order indicating grant of injunction and in the absence of any averments in this Civil Application making out any case for injunction or passing order of status quo, prayer (d) also cannot be granted and the same is rejected. It is however, clarified that if such an apprehension arises, the Appellant will always be free to file an Application, which will be considered on its own merits. 3. Mr. Kadam apprehends that this order may be construed as an order prejudicial to the right of the Applicants to file a Civil Application for stay 3 4.cas1197.06 of further proceedings in Special Civil Suit No. 500 of 1998. The Apprehension is not proper. The Applicants will always be at liberty to file such an Application, which will be decided on its own merits. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)