HEMANGINI V DESAI Vs. SAJIT SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Tripada Trivedi for Mr. B.D.Karia, learned advocate for the appellants, has submitted that the appellant has died and therefore, the appeal may be disposed of. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 17.10.2003 whereby the learned trial Court passed order below application Exh.5 (Notice of Motion) and rejected the said application. The appellant-original plaintiff by the said Notice of Motion prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the shares in question. The appellant-original plaintiff claimed that she is the owner of the suit property viz. the shares and defendant No.1 had got the said shares transferred in her favour without knowledge of the appellant. On such allegation, the appellant had prayed for the interim relief. Any ex-parte relief was not granted and subsequently, after hearing the appellant-original plaintiff, the learned trial Court rejected the Notice of Motion.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred present appeal which was admitted by order dated 04.02.2005. Earlier, ad-interim relief in terms of para 6(B) of Civil Application No.4441 of 2004 was granted and thereafter, by order dated 04.02.2005, it was ordered to be continued till further orders with liberty to the respondents to move application for vacating the interim relief. Any application does not appear to have been filed by the respondents and the appeal does not appear to have been prosecuted further. The appeal was listed for hearing on 15.09.2010 when no one attended the hearing hence, the appeal was adjourned to today.

(3.) Today also, neither the appellant nor the respondents are present when the appeal is taken up for hearing. As noted above, the respondents have not moved any application for vacating the interim relief. Since the proceedings of the suit were not stayed, in all probability, the suit must have been proceeded further and might have got concluded by now. Considering the fact that the ad-interim relief has operated until now and has not been vacated and despite the liberty having been granted, the respondents have not moved any application, it appears that the following order would serve the interest of justice.