CHIMANLAL THAKERSHI MODI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mundergi for the appellants, Mr. D. R. More, learned APP, for the State respondent No. l and, Mrs. Dave for Respondent no. 2.

(2.) THE appellants have challenged by this appeal an order dated 31. 10. 2003 passed by the special Court in Misc. Application No. 63/2003 filed by the appellants before that court resulting in dismissal of the said application. Howeverm, by the said impugned order the Special judge stayed the execution of the order dated 7. 1. 2663 passed by Special Judge R. S. Dalvi in misc. Application No. 706 of 2662. That order was to the effect that upon the applicants issuing a dd/po for Rs. 6,25,000. 00 plus Rs. 6,25,000. 00 plus all the compensation amounts received from the accused as per clause 2 in both the agreements, drawn in the name of Sr. PI GB CB CID, the seal put on the premises of the applicants shall be removed by the 1o. The impugned order is one dated 31. 16. 2063 but. it affects two orders vide order in Misc. Application 63/2003 and order in misc. Application No. 766/2602.

(3.) THIS case is arising out of MPID Act. The applicants/appellants are the owners of the premises. They had given their premises on leave and licence basis to the accused in C. R. No. 66 of 2002. The accused is Respondent No. 2 before this Court. It appears from the memo of appeal, the accused has not been joined in this appeal. However, Mrs. Dave has been appearing in this appeal right from beginning and she has also filed an application for intervention along with affidavit. Therefore? the presence of the accused was there in the appeal right from the beginning. The appellants to forthwith amend the appeal and to add the name of the accused, as respondent No. 2.