31-AO-266-18.doc rsk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.266 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO341 OF 2018 M/s. A.B.C. Associates …Appellant Versus D.R. Tank (HUF) & Ors. ...Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15138 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.15139 OF 2018 Mr. Nilesh H. Jaipuria …Appellant Versus D.R. Tank (HUF) & Ors. ...Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15141 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.15142 OF 2018 Mr. Hariom C. Jaipuria …Appellant Versus D.R. Tank (HUF) & Ors. ...Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15147 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.15148 OF 2018 M/s. Yashree Enterprises …Appellant Versus D.R. Tank (HUF) & Ors. ...Respondents 1 of 4 31-AO-266-18.doc WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15150 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.15151 OF 2018 Mr. Rajdeep Baban Chavan …Appellant Versus D.R. Tank (HUF) & Ors. ...Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15152 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.15153 OF 2018 Mr. Arjun Earth Movers …Appellant Versus D.R. Tank (HUF) & Ors. ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Anand Mishra a/w. Ms. Priti Rao i/b Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi, for the Appellant. Mrs. Astha Thamankar a/w. Mr. Sameer Chitnis, Mr. Om Dandekar i/b M/s. Chitnis & Co.,for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 to 6. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 13 NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.: APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.266 OF 2018 1. This appeal challenges an ad-interim order dated 3 May 2018 passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.1041 of 2018 in Suit No.562 of 2018. As per the website of the City Civil Court, Notice of Motion No.1041 of 2018 has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous. 2. Appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. Civil 2 of 4 31-AO-266-18.doc Application does not survive. APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15150 OF 2018 3. This appeal challenges an ad-interim order dated 3 May 2018 passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.1043 of 2018 in Suit No.564 of 2018. As per the website of the City Civil Court, Notice of Motion No.1043 of 2018 has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous. 4. Appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. Civil Application does not survive. APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15147 OF 2018 5. This appeal challenges an ad-interim order dated 3 May 2018 passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.1042 of 2018 in Suit No.563 of 2018. As per the website of the City Civil Court, Notice of Motion No.1042 of 2018 has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous. 6. Appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. Civil Application does not survive. APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15138 OF 2018 7. This appeal challenges an ad-interim order dated 3 May 2018 whereby injunction requested was refused. The main Notice of Motion No.1039 of 2018 in Suit No.560 of 2018, at the request of original plaintiff has been tagged with the suit. Therefore, no interference is called for. In any case, I have perused the impugned order and no further perversity or infirmity is shown for interference. 8. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. Civil Application does not survive. 3 of 4 31-AO-266-18.doc APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15152 OF 2018 9. This appeal challenges an ad-interim order dated 3 May 2018 whereby request for injunction by the plaintiff was refused. Learned counsel for the appellant states that Notice of Motion No.1044 of 2018 in Suit No.565 of 2018 has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, the present appeal has become infructuous. 10. Appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. Civil Application does not survive. APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.15141 OF 2018 11. This appeal challenges refusal of ad-interim relief by order dated 3 May 2018. The main Notice of Motion No.1040 of 2018 in Suit No.561 of 2018, at the request of the original plaintiff has been tagged with the original suit. Therefore, there is no reason for interfering in the present order. 12. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Civil Application does not survive. Interim relief, if any stands vacated. [ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] 4 of 4