Mr. Vithal Pandu Malik and his wife and Others vs Mr. Narayan Vaman Malik and his wife and Others

F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Shri A.F. Diniz, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.64 and Shri A. Kansar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 13, 25, 34 and 36 to 43. The above appeal challenges the portion of an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Bicholim in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.9/2006 in Special Civil Suit No. 33/2005, whereby on an application for injunction filed by the respondent no.64, the application came to be granted, but however, the respondent no.64/defendant no.21 in the suit was directed to deposit the rent with effect from June, 2007 before the trial Court. The appellants who are aggrieved with the said part of the order directing the respondent no.64 to deposit the rent with effect from June, 2007 have preferred the present appeal.

This Court by an order dated 13/03/2009 whilst admitting the above appeal granted an interim stay of the order passed by the learned trial Judge directing the deposit of the amount since June, 2007.

During the course of the hearing of the above appeal, Shri Diniz, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.64 points out upon instructions that he has no objection if the impugned part of the order directing the respondent no.64 to deposit the rent before the learned trial Judge be stayed and the order passed by this Court dated 13/03/2009 may continue to operate without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent no.64 until disposal of the suit pending before the trial Court.

Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel however pointed out that in case the said order is continued until disposal of the suit before the learned trial Judge, the above appeal can be disposed of.

Shri A. Kansar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 13, 25, 34 and 36 to 43 states that the dispute with that regard is between the appellants and respondent no.64 herein.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the said submissions of the learned counsel, I find it appropriate that the part of the order to the extent it directs respondent no.64/defendant no.21 to deposit rent from June, 2007 before the learned trial Judge be quashed and set aside, and the appeal be disposed of with a direction that the said order dated 13/03/2009 shall continue to be in operation without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties until the disposal of the suit. Hence, the appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.