Single-line order disposing of a civil application regarding the pendency of an appeal and execution of decree, imposing a restriction on creating third-party interest in suit property.
Order disposed; respondents prohibited from creating third-party interest in suit property without court permission pending execution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.420 OF 2003
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.280 OF2003
------------------------------------:----------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
or directions and Registrar’s :
orders. :
------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
Mr Dilip Bodake, for the
applicant/appellant.
Mr S.R.Chinchlikar, for the respondent.
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J.
DATED : 29th October, 2007
P.C.:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Pendency of the Second Appeal shall not
operate as stay to the execution of the
decree. The respondents shall not create
third party interest in the suit property
without permission of this court. The civil
application is disposed of.
(D.B.BHOSALE,J.)
Applicant/Appellant
Respondents
D.B.Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court