← Library
Bombay High CourtAO/271/2015dismissed

Smt. Vimal Kisan Tapkir v. Shri Maruti Patilbuva Tupe And ORS

2018-09-17Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi2 pages

YBG 22-ao-271-15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.271 OF 2015 Smt. Vimal Kisan Tapkir ..

Appellant

Versus

Maruti Patilbuva Tupe & Ors.

..

Respondents Mr. Sudhir V. Sadavarte for appellant Mr. Jayesh Dande with Bharat Gadhavi I/b. Jayesh Dande & Associates for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 Mr. Farhad T. Marolia I/b. KRY Legal for respondent No.7 Mr. Yakshay Chheda with Ms. Devanshi Sethi I/b. Juris Corp for respondent No.9.

Yogeshwar Bhalchandra Gokhale Date: 2018.09.18 20:20:31 -0400

CORAM

:

DR.SHALINI PHANSALKARJOSHI, J.

Yogeshwar Bhalchandra Gokhale DATE :

17th September 2018.

P.C.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. In this appeal exception is taken to the order dated 27th January 2015 passed by 6th additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune thereby rejecting the application under Exh.185 filed by the appellant for extension of the order of status quo granted on 17th October 2014 below Exh.142 and the order below Exh.173 passed on 21st January 2015. 2] The perusal of the order goes to show that it was purely

YBG 22-ao-271-15 an interim or interlocutory order, by which only extension of status quo was stayed and which was rejected on the ground that the appellant has mis-represented certain facts before the office of SubRegistrar. A perusal of the order passed by the trial court would also show that it does not disclose any irregularity much less illegality or impropriety so as to warrant interference therein. The appeal, therefore, holds no merit and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Learned Counsel for the appellant at this stage makes a request for extension of order of ad-interim relief granted in this appeal.

3] Considering that the appeal is pending since 2015 and it was against an interlocutory order and now the suit is fixed for evidence, no case is made out for extension of such ad-interim relief granted by this Court. Hence, that request is also rejected. In view of dismissal of appeal, all pending applications shall also become infructuous and stand dismissed.

(Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.)