All Cases

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1831 OF 2017 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 13947 OF 2017 The New India Assurance Co.ltd.through Applicant Centralized Motor Tp Claims Hub V/S Mr. Ashok Dayabji Ramparia And Anr. Respondent CORAM : G.S. PATEL, J DATE : 11th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 19/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 1831 OF 2017 In FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 13947 OF 2017 The New India Assurance Co.ltd.through Applicant Centralized Motor Tp Claims Hub V/S Mr. Ashok Dayabji Ramparia And Anr. Respondent CORAM : G.S. PATEL, J DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned, Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 23/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 13947 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1831 OF 2017 The New India Assurance Co Ltd …Appellant Versus Ashik Dayabji Ramparia & Ors …Respondents Mr Devendranath S Joshi *, for the Appellant/Applicant.* Mrs Varsha Chavan *, for the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.* CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 27th July 2017 PC:- 1. The facts are set out in the judgment delivered today in First Appeal No. 1 of 2015. Here the claimant was the rider of the motorcycle. His father, who was riding pillion, died in the same accident. 2. The same issue as regards the permit was taken in this case. I have rejected the submission. The present case is one of injury. The claimant was admitted to the Sanjivani Hospital on 2nd November 2006. He was operated for a fracture and he was an indoor patient till 17th November 2006. He submitted his medical bills. He had a grade II compound fracture of the humerus with rapid nerve palsy, abrasion and other injuries. He says he has difficulty in moving. He has had body implants. He is unable to carry on his effective work as a mason. His permanent partial disability was estimated at 48% based on the evidence of one Dr Naresh Khanna. The Tribunal awarded him Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses and then proceeded to award an amount of Rs. 3,93,000/- as compensation including NFL. 3. In my view, there is really no reason to interfere with any part of the award. The MACT has correctly assessed every aspect of it including taking into account that the fracture was to the right hand and, therefore, taken a slightly higher amount towards the disability compensation. 4. I do not think it is possible to fault the conclusions of the Tribunal. The principles that have been established by the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs New India Assurance Co Ltd ** 1 ** regarding the duty of the Court to provide reasonable restitution to the claimant have been followed in letter and in spirit. 5. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- is to be transferred to the MACT, Mumbai within two weeks from today. 6. The claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with all accrued interest. The MACT will permit such withdrawal on production of an authenticated copy of this order. 1 (2010) 10 SCC 254. 7. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 8. The civil application does not survive and is disposed of as infructuous. (G. S. PATEL, J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 721 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra : Applicant. versus Ravindra Vitthal Gharat & ors. : Respondents. Mr P S Hingorani APP for the Applicant/State. COR CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & K U CHANDIWAL, JJ DAT Е: DATE : O7TH JULY 2011 P.C. 1 Heard. Perused the impugned judgment and the deposition of the witnesses placed on record by the learned APP. 2 Leave to file appeal is granted. Appeal is Admitted. 3 Action under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code be taken. (K U CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr Patil Pavan Suryaprakash Adv for Appellant Ms Sonali Jadhav, Adv for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 4th July, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 18/07/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. PAVAN S. PATIL for Appellant. Ms. SONALI JADHAV for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 14th September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 21/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT None for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w Sonali Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 21st September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pavan Patil for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre i/b Sonali Jadhav for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pavan Patil for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre i/b Sonali Jadhav for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: 5-AO-668-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 Mr.Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe … Appellants/Applicants and Others Vs. Mr. Sachin Sayajirao Palance and … Respondents Another Mr. Shubham Saraf i/b. Mr. Pawan Patil for the Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w. Ms. Sonali Jadhav and Mr. Sanket Patil for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 3 rd MARCH 2025 ORDER : This appeal is listed for extension of time. Time to dispose of the suit as per order dated 28th September 2022 is extended by eight months as prayed. [GAURI GODSE, J.]

Order - Status 4: 39.6391.23 wp.doc Iresh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav LHR ….Petitioner of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav V/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav ….Respondents LHR of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and others Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the State Ms. Priya Pandey a/w Jackie for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent No. 4 CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 19 th MAY, 2023. (VACATION COURT) P.C. :- This Petition is filed to challenge the order dated 3rd May 2023 passed in Appeal No. 283 of 2022. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that by the said order, the order of stay granted on 17th March 2023 has been vacated. He invited my attention to the order dated 17th March 2023, by which there was an order of statusquo granted. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on instructions states that possession of the offending structure is already taken on 1st March 2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that such a statement was never made during the hearing before the concerned authority. In view of the rival contentions raised by all the parties, parties are directed to file their respective Affidavits placing on record the exact status of the offending structure. Since there was an order of status quo passed on 17th March 2023 in Appeal No. 283 of 2022, it will be in the interest of justice to direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they will not create any third-party interest in the alternate structure as regards the offending structure till the next date. Respondents are at liberty to file their respective Affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within a period of one week thereafter. Stand over to 16th June 2023. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 of 2023 Baban S. Jadhav LHR of Smt. Parvati S. Jadhav …Petitioner V/s. Sujata H. Jadhav LHR of Hiroji D. Jadhav and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane for the Petitioner. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 21.06.2023. P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. List on 5 July 2023. The interim order, if any, to continue till the next date. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 … … Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Jackie Jain, Advocate for Respondent no.1. 1/1 Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State. Mr. Ankit S. Dubey, Advocate for Respondent no.4. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2023. P.C. : At the request of learned Counsel for Respondent no.1, stand over to August 2, 2023. Interim order to continue till then. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.07.24 11:34:31 +0530 28-WP-6391-2023.doc Neeta Sawant

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT Adv.ABHIJEET P RANE for Petitioner Mr.A.P. Vanarase - AGP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 6th October, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 13/10/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 13th October, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/12/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: 18-wp-6391-2023.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri Baban Shanakar Jadhav Lrs of Smt Parvati Shankar Jadhav … Petitioner vs. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lrs of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors … Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane a/w. Swarta Suryawanshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav a/w. Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent no.4. Mr. Dilip Shukla a/w. Ms. Priya Pandey i/b. Jackie Jain for Respondent no.1. Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21 st FEBRUARY, 2024 P.C. :- Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to annex copy of Annexure-II on the basis of which petitioner claims that Parvatibai had right to get alternate premises. The petitioner to also annex copy of the appeal memo filed before the Competent Authority. Necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Stand over to 18th March 2024. The respondents are at liberty to file affidavit if necessary in response to the amendment. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE: 18 th MARCH 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 61 to 71 22nd April 2024 72 to 82 23rd April 2024 83 to 93 26th April 2024 94 to 106 29th April 2024 107 2nd April 2024 108 to 126, 128 to 136 3rd May 2024 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Iresh

Order - Status 19: common order.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 3rd MAY 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 77 to 91 23rd June 2024 92 to 112 1st July 2024 113 to 133 2nd July 2024 134 to 155 5th July 2024 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 22: 42wp6391-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 ————— Baban Shankar Jadhav LRs. of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ... Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav LR.s of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet Rane, for the Petitioner. Mr.Jackie Jain, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav i/by Mr.Ankit s. Dubey, for the Respondent No.4. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for the Respondents-State. ————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 01, 2024 P. C. : 1. By this Petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee dated 3rd May, 2023 in Appeal No.283 of 2022, challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 15th October, 2022, by which the Application filed by the Petitioner seeking inclusion of his name in the Annexure-II came to be rejected. 2. By order dated 15th October, 2022, the Additional Collector noted that the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in Annexure-II at Serial No.128 and his name has also reflected in the voters list of 42wp6391-23 1995 for Ward No.427, at Serial No.597, T-1 and that on the basis of photo-pass which was issued, his illegibility has been determined. As regards the petitioner's mother, it was noted that the name of Petitioner's mother was included in the voters list for Ward No.427 at Serial No.599, T-2 and that both these structures appear to be different. The submissions which were advanced before the Additional Collector was that the Petitioner's mother was residing at Bandra and thereafter was allotted the hut at Kandivali where she was residing till 1997 and thereafter due to her old age, she started residing at her native place. It was contended before the Additional Collector that her brother started residing in the said hut without having any right to reside therein. It was further contended that the Respondent No.1 has also been issued the photo-pass in respect of the said hut and that on the basis of fraudulent documents, the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in Annexure-II. 3. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order has dismissed the Appeal by upholding the findings of the Additional Collector that there are two different structures of the parties and that the delay has not been explained. The Appellate Authority further held that the Appellant has failed to produce any document on record to show that the Respondent No.1 by misleading the Authorities has inserted his 42wp6391-23 name in Annexure-II. 4. Mr. Rane, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother was staying in Bandra at Zopdi No.REGE/Bandra/165. After the relocation to Kandivali, new Identity Card was issued having Serial No.84411. He submits that Identity Card No.0408308 was issued in name of petitioner's mother against Hut No.REGE/Bandra/165, C.S.No.163 (Part) Village Akorli. He would further submit that the Respondent No.1 had in fact, divided the hut into two different structures and had thereafter claimed right in respect of the part of the structure which was in his possession which is impermissible in law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4-Developer submits that the entire scheme has been completed and the possession has already been handed over to the eligible slumdwellers. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. Although the application which was made by the Petitioner was for deciding his eligibility and for inserting his name in Annexure-II, it appears that the submissions which were canvassed before the Collector was confined to the fraud which is alleged to have been committed by the Respondent No.1 by including his name in Annexure-II. The order of the Appellate Authority also indicates that the same submissions were advanced that the Respondent No.1 without any right in the property has started occupying the hut after the petitioner's mother in the year 1997 left the premises to reside at her native place. 8. Upon consideration of the material produced on record, the Additional Collector as well as the Appellate Authority has noted from the documents that the name of the Respondent No.1 is in respect of her different hut i.e. T-1 and in the voters list, the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in respect of Ward No.427 at Serial No.597 whereas the Petitioner's mother name appears in the voters list in the year 1995 in Ward No.427 at Serial No.599 in respect of T-2. Based on these documents both the authorities have held that there are two different structures. The submission which is now sought to be canvassed that the hut was divided by the Respondent No.1 into two different parts and thereafter separate record was prepared is not the case of the Petitioner either in the application or in the submissions canvassed before the Collector and the Appellate Authority. The application of the Petitioner pleads that in respect of the said hut, it is the Petitioner who has a right being the legal heir of the original occupant and the Respondent No.1 has prepared fraudulent document and has got himself declared eligible in Annexure-II. 9. Considering that the findings of the Additional Collector and the Appellate Authority is that there are two different structures of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1, the Authorities were required to decide the eligibility of the Petitioner in respect of her own hut structure which does not appear to have been done. The Authorities appears to have considered the submissions advanced by the Petitioner qua the fraudulent manner in which the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in place of the Petitioner's mother in respect of the said hut in Annexure-II. 10. Be that as it may. As both the authorities have held that there are two different structures, let an appropriate application be filed by the Petitioner before the Additional Collector within a period of four weeks. The application to be decided by the Collector on its own merits and in accordance with law. 11. As the proceedings are pending since 2013, the Additional Collector is requested to decide the same expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the receipt of the application. Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms. 12. Needless to clarify that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

#VALUE!

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1991 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 1998 Shri Narayan Tukaram Agre & Anr. .. Applicants. Vs. Shri Vinayak Narayan Naik & Ors. .. Respondents. Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for the applicants. Mr.S.V.Dhakepalkar i/b P.K.Dhakepalkar for respondent no.1. Ms.Yasmin Desai for respondent nos.2, 2A to 2G. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2006 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents. By this application, the applicants have prayed for restoration of possession of the suit premises which was obtained by the respondent-landlord on 3rd July, 2006. In the main writ petition, the interim relief was passed. However, the writ petition itself came to be dismissed for default on 22nd March, 2006 and then it was restored on file on 21st July, 2006. It appears that between 22nd March, 2006 and 21st July, 2006 the execution proceedings were prosecuted by the respondent-landlord and possession was restored on 3rd July, 2006. Mr.Dhakepalkar, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that he shall not create third party right in respect of suit premises and shall keep it vacant till the disposal of writ petition. The statement is accepted. In view thereof the prayer in the instant application need not be considered at this stage. Civil application is, accordingly, disposed of. It is open for the applicant to collect her articles and belongings required by him which are still lying in the room without prejudice to the rights and contentions within two weeks from today after giving prior intimation to respondent no.1. Rest of the articles shall remain in the suit premises till the disposal of the writ petition. Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to take receipt of delivery of the articles and belongings whichever applicants choose to collect from the premises and shall not insist for any other writing from the applicants. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1991 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 1998 Shri Narayan Tukaram Agre & Anr. .. Applicants. Vs. Shri Vinayak Narayan Naik & Ors. .. Respondents. Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for the applicants. Mr.S.V.Dhakepalkar i/b P.K.Dhakepalkar for respondent no.1. Ms.Yasmin Desai for respondent nos.2, 2A to 2G. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2006 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents. In the order dated 17th August, 2006 wherever the words "respondent-landlord" appear it may be read as "respondent no.1" only. The order dated 17th August, 2006 stands modified to that extent. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)