Mr. Manoj Kumar Upadhyay For Respondent

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1063 OF 2008 IN S.C.SUIT NO.313 OF 2008 ....................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda . of Coram, appearances, Court's . Orders or directions and . Registrar's Order Court's or Judge's Order ....................................................... Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.G.S.Godbole for Respondents. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. :- . Leave to the Appellant to make an application for removal of the debri alone before the Trial Court. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, appearances, Court's . orders or directions and . Registrar's orders . -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain for the Appellant. Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Ms.J.V. Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J . DATED : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. : Admit. 2.The impugned order does not warrant any interference. Prima-facie, it does appear that the Plaintiff had some right in the suit structure purchased from the predecessor-in-title of the Appellant. There is nothing at this stage which indicates that the agreement dated 10.10.1988 is of no effect. Added to this is the fact that the Appellant issued the bills in respect of the Plaintiff's structure after they acquired rights in respect of the suit property. 3.It further appears that the confusion regarding the identity of the structure and co-relation thereof with the municipal numbers is on account of certain construction activity/demolition which has taken place recently. Unless these aspects are considered at the final hearing of this Appeal from Order, it would not be correct to grant interlocutory order virtually allowing the Appeal at this stage. 4.In the circumstances, no interim orders staying the operation of the impugned order. The pendency of this Appeal from Order will not be a reason for the trial Court not to proceed with the trial.

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE DISTRICT : APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1063 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1304 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's orders orders or directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.L.J.Law for the Appellant. Mr.Girish Godbole i/b.Mr.J.V.Kanade for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C : Order in terms of the consent terms/Minutes of the Order, tendered in Court and marked 'X' and 'X1' respectively. The consent terms have been signed by he parties and their Advocates. The compliance regarding registration shall be informed to the Court. ***