( 1 ) THIS is an application moved by the newly joined respondent No. 11 in Spl. C. A. No. 12594 of 2002. This application under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of India seeks vacation of ad-interim relief granted on 30-12-2002 in terms of Para 21 (C) of the memorandum of petition.

( 2 ) THE applicants moved two Civil Applications on 24-2-2003. Civil application No. 1606 of 2003 was filed at the behest of the applicant-Trust praying that the applicant be joined as respondent No. 11 in the main petition. The said application viz. , Civil Application No. 1606 of 2003 came to be granted by this Court on 30-4-2003 and the applicants were permitted to be joined as necessary parties as respondent No. 11 in the main petition.

( 3 ) ON the same day viz. , 30-4-2003, this Court (Coram : Jayant Patel, j.), passed the following order in the present application :"since the applicants are impleaded as party pursuant to the order passed today in C. A. No. 1606 of 2003 in Spl. C. A No. 12594 of 2002 this application under Art. 226 (3) shall be treated as from today onwards. 2. However, Mr. Kazi for the applicants states that the hearing of this application under Art. 226 (3) be taken after vacation. Hence, put up on 30-6-2003".

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, when the matter came up on 30-6-2003, on behalf of the applicant a request was made for time and the following order was made by this Court (Coram : D. A. Merita, J.) :"it is stated by Mr. Premsing for Mr. Yatin Soni for the applicant that mr. Kaji, learned Advocate appearing as Counsel is ha ing some personal difficulty, and hence, the Civil Application under Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution may kindly be adjourned. In light of the fact that the applicant himself is seeking time, the interim relief granted earlier in the main petition to continue. To come up on 7-7-2003. "

( 5 ) TODAY, Mr. Kaji, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant states that in light of the provisions of Art. 226 (3) of the Constitution of india the interim relief granted vide order dated 30-12-2002 stands vacated automatically and only formal order is required to be passed by this Court. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of District development Officer v. Maniben Virabhai, 2000 (2) GLR 1436 (FB) : 2000 (2) GLH 204 (FB ).

( 6 ) AS against this, Mr. Mayank Buch, learned Advocate appearing for m/s. Singhi and Co. , on behalf of the original petitioners submits that the applicant has no locus to file the present application in view of the fact that the original order dated 30-12-2002 in the main petition does not operate against the present applicant. Secondly, it is contended that on merits also the present applicants submission that as Waqf Board has not been joined as a necessary party the interim relief granted in the main petition stands automatically vacated also should not be accepted.

( 7 ) HAVING heard the parties at length, it is apparent that this application does not deserve to be accepted for the following reasons :

( 8 ) THERE can be no dispute as regards the legal proposition propounded in the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court. However, what is necessary to be noted and which is peculiar to the facts of the present case is that when the aforesaid order came to be made the present applicant was not even a party in the main petition, and hence, there is no question of an ex pane interim order operating against the said applicant. The interim relief granted vide aforesaid order dated 30-12-2002 reads as under :"heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakor appearing for Singhi and Co. Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 27th January, 2003. In the meantime, ad-interim relief in terms of Para 21 (C) till next date. It is clarified that this relief is granted with respect to the property in actual possession of the petitioners only and it does not extend to any other part of the property. All the petitioners shall file undertaking