Kiran Harkrishandas Ghaswalla v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

906.APEALNo.9332008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.933 OF 2008 Dulari Kiran Ghaswalla ...

Appellant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents .....

Mr.H.S.Venegaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant Mrs.S.V.Gajare, APP for the Respondent/State. Mr.Yogesh B.Dandekar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. ....

CORAM :

ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.

DATED :

23RD JUNE 2015 ORAL ORDER :

1.

Heard Mr.H.S.Venegavkar learned counsel for the appellant. Heard Mr.Yogesh Dandekar learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2.

The learned counsel for the parties submit before me that the First Information Report, from which the MPID Special Case No.35 of 2004 arose, has been quashed by this court by an order dated 26th April 2010 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 987 of 2010. There is, therefore, no dispute that the proceedings of the MPID Special Cases, in which the impugned order came to be passed, have come to an end.

Gaikwad RD 1/2

906.APEALNo.9332008 3.

Since the proceedings of the MPID Special Case have been terminated, the impugned order, which was an interim order passed in the said case obviously does not survive. Since the order impugned does not survive, the present appeal which challenges that order, also does not survive.

4.

What is submitted before me by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that there exists a dispute between the appellant and the respondent No.2 with respect to the premises in question i.e. Room No.38, 4th Floor, Ghaswalla Compound, S.B.Marg, Tardev, Mumbai that were attached under the impugned order. The appellant is said to be the owner and landlord of the premises and the respondent No.2 is said to be the tenant thereof. There are disputes pending between the appellant and the respondent No.2 as to the possession of the said premises and, in any case, as to the entitlement to possess the same. These disputes are said to be pending in the Court of Small Causes. 5.

It is clear that these disputes shall not be affected by any order that would be passed in the present appeal. As a matter of fact, this proposition is not doubted or disputed by any of the learned counsel.

6.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the appeal does not survive and stands disposed of. (ABHAY M. THIPSAY J.) Gaikwad RD 2/2