JUDGMENT - A.A. CAZI, J.:---This is applicants' Notice of Motion for an order directing the Prothonotary Senior-Master to pay a sum of Rs. 1,93,169.40 as balance of outstanding charges of the applicants from the sale proceeds deposited in Court. 2. M.V. Shanta Rohan is the vessel in question and it is defendant No. 2 in the suit. The vessel entered the Port of Bombay on 4th September, 1988. The vessel was arrested for the purpose of this suit and ultimately the vessel was sold and the sale was confirmed on 4th July, 1991. The applicants had a lien on the vessel to recover its dues. Earlier the applicants took out a Notice of Motion and obtained an order for payment of their dues for the period upto 26th April, 1991. This was by the order dated 4th July, 1991. Their dues for the period after 26th April, 1991 till 4th July, 1991 were not specifically claimed by them in the previous Notice of Motion and therefore there was no order for payment of their dues for this period. That, however, would not deprive them of their right to claim their dues. The amount is still lying in Court. They would therefore be entitled to obtain an order to recover their dues for the period after 26th April, 1991 till 4th July, 1991 as their lien over the vessel or its sale proceeds continued till 4th July, 1991. 3. It was argued by Mr. Gomes that the applicants had notice of the arrest of the vessel and of the sale and therefore they cannot make a claim now for the period after 26th April, 1991 till 4th July, 1991 as there is no lien continuing. Mr. Gomes places reliance on observations made in (Ashoke Arya v. M.V. Kapitan Mitsos and others)1, A.I.R. 1988 Bombay 329, which observations are : "The important thing to note is the principle that the lien given by statute to a dock or harbour authority cannot be extinguished by Court unless it be done with the authority's express or implied consent. Mr. Gomes places reliance on observations made in (Ashoke Arya v. M.V. Kapitan Mitsos and others)1, A.I.R. 1988 Bombay 329, which observations are : "The important thing to note is the principle that the lien given by statute to a dock or harbour authority cannot be extinguished by Court unless it be done with the authority's express or implied consent. It destroys the argument that the order of the learned judge date 21st Oct., 1985 on the Sheriff's report date 15th Oct., 1985 had the effect of extinguishing the B.P.T.'s lien on the said vessel and that the B.P.T. had acquiesced therein by not seeking its variation." Now, in our case, the sale of the vessel was effected after the applicants made a claim to the Court of their rights and dues and the "consent" to the sale can only be construed to transfer applicants' right of lien over the vessel to a charge over the sale proceeds. Hence, Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The payment to be made to the applicants after four weeks from today. Prothonotary to act on the certified copy of the minutes of the order. Order accordingly. -----