ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant impugning the order dated 20-8-1998 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay refusing an interim order in favour of the appellant. The matter arises out of an agreement dated 27-11-1990 between the appellant and Respondent 1 herein in respect of certain rights created by the appellant assignor in favour of Respondent 1 assignee. The agreement was for a period of 11 years from the date of delivery of the film. 2. IA No. 5 has been filed by the appellant stating that the contracted period under the agreement has run out and therefore, the appellant assignor is entitled to exercise his legal rights in respect of the subject-matter of the agreement after the expiry of the period of agreement. According to him, 9 whatever rights Respondent 1 had under the agreement have come to an end. It is submitted that in view of the order passed by this Court directing the parties to maintain status quo, by way of abundant caution, this application has been filed to clarify/direct that the status quo order passed by this Court will not come in the way of the appellant exercising his legal rights in respect h of the subject-matter of the agreement after the expiry of the contracted period. 3. Counsel for Respondent 1 submits that in fact this appeal itself has become infructuous in view of the fact that the agreement over which the parties are litigating has come to an end. 4. Mr G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that before making a statement before this Court he would like to seek instructions. 5. Let this matter come up after two weeks. In the meantime, we direct that the status quo order will not come in the way of the appellant in exercise of his legal rights in respect of the subject-matter of the agreement after the expiry of the contracted period. Put up after two weeks when the parties will make their submissions on the question as to whether this appeal has not become infructuous. 6. In this case the only difference is that the date of agreement is different. An order is therefore passed in the same terms as in IA No.5. Court Masters