JUDGMENT : A.J. SHASTRI, J. Rule. Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate, waives service on behalf of respondents. 2. The applicant - original appellant has filed the present Civil Application for seeking direction on the premise that during the pendency of the proceeding, the compound wall has been removed and an attempt is made to violate the order passed by this Court and hence, prayed for following reliefs: “(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct opponent No. 1/3 - Shantaben to stop the user of the property namely, the portion of one room and kitchen which was in possession with deceased tenant Narendrabhai Mohanlal Shah. (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct opponent No. 1/3 - Shantaben to remove all her belongings which she had put up in illegal act or illegal trespass into the portion of one room and kitchen, which was in possession with deceased tenant Narendrabhai Mohanlal Shah and be further pleased to direct opponent No. 1/3 - Shantaben to reconstruct the brick wall which was demolished by her and to restore the property to its original position. (c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a commissioner with a direction to inspect Bungalow No. 11A of the ground floor and to make a report as to which portion of the wall is removed and/or demolished and be further pleased to direct the commissioner that as per the aforesaid relief, if Shantaben does not restore the property to its position by raising new brick wall and close the entry to the portion which was in possession of the deceased tenant Narendrabhai Mohanlal Shah, then in that case, the commissioner may restore the property to its original position at the risks and costs of opponent No. 1/3 - Shantaben. (d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the opponents to handover the possession of the portion being one room and kitchen which was in possession of the deceased tenant Narendrabhai Mohanlal Shah.” 3. It is the case of the applicant that feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 14.7.2006 by virtue of which the learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 17, Ahmedabad had dismissed the suit of the applicant being Civil Suit No. 6138 of 1990, the present first appeal has been filed which has been admitted by this Court. It appears that a right was tried to be asserted in the suit property by present applicant - original plaintiff which came to be adjudicated upon and the City Civil Court, Court No. 17, Ahmedabad was pleased to dismiss the suit by observing that the applicant - original plaintiff has miserably failed to substantiate that deceased Shankarlal Harjivandas Patel was Benamidar of the suit property and had no right, title or interest in the suit property. The applicant's case was, therefore, not considered by the Court below and the brief observations, since are relevant, are reproduced hereinafter: “12. In view of the aforementioned evidence and legal principles, it can well be said that the plaintiff has miserably failed to substantiate that deceased Shankarlal Harjivandas Patel was Benamidar of the suit property and he had no right, title or interest in the suit property. Merely because two daughters of the deceased, who became the defendants in the present suit after the death of deceased defendant No. 1, have made some inconsistent statements in their respective oral evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has substantiate his allegation in this regard. As per the settled legal position, it is for the person who alleged about the benami transaction shall substantiate and prove the same by producing cogent and satisfactory evidence. As the plaintiff has failed to adduce satisfactory and cogent evidence in this regard, he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for by him in the present suit. Moreover, it may be stated that Benami transaction alleged to have taken place in 1958 and the plaintiff has filed present suit in 1990. In these circumstances also, it can well be said that the suit is barred by limitation. In these circumstances also, this Court has no alternative but to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Hence, issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are answered according and following final order is passed. ORDER In the result, the present suit fails and stands dismissed with costs.” 4. The said judgment and decree is assailed by way of present first appeal which is awaiting final hearing. Hence, issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are answered according and following final order is passed. ORDER In the result, the present suit fails and stands dismissed with costs.” 4. The said judgment and decree is assailed by way of present first appeal which is awaiting final hearing. The applicant, in the meantime, has come forward with this civil application by pointing out that Bungalow No. 11A which is a disputed property is alleged to be ownership of late Kanubhai Punjiram Patel, who purchased two bungalows in the same society i.e Bungalow Nos. 11A and 11B and this was on account of the fact that in the society, two houses were not possible to be purchased on account of restriction and, therefore, Bungalow No. 11A was purchased in the name of Shankarlal Harjivandas Patel which ownership was Benami. The applicant has further stated in this application that three rooms on the front portion and three rooms on the back side are situated in which front portion was in possession of Shantaben which is consisting of one room and one another tenant Narendrabhai Mohanlal Shah was occupying one room and one kitchen. It has been stated that the applicant resides in Bungalow No. 11B. Meaning thereby Bungalow No. 11A was in the hands of Shantaben which is consisting of one room and Narendrabhai was occupying one room and one kitchen. 5. By way of this brief application, it has been stated that wife of this tenant Narendrabhai expired on 3.5.2016, whereas Narendrabhai the tenant expired on 30.9.2017 and no legal heirs were available and, therefore, the same was in vacant possession. It was stated that Narendrabhai Mohanlal Shah was an old tenant and the applicant was used to collect the rent from him upto the year 1990 and the proceedings were lodged in the City Civil Court being Civil Suit No. 6138 of 1990 and the First Appeal is arising out of this suit proceeding. It was stated that Narendrabhai Mohanlal Shah was an old tenant and the applicant was used to collect the rent from him upto the year 1990 and the proceedings were lodged in the City Civil Court being Civil Suit No. 6138 of 1990 and the First Appeal is arising out of this suit proceeding. Said Narendrabhai had long back stopped the payment of rent and was occupying one room and a kitchen in Bungalow No. 11A of Ramkrushna society and after his death, in a very short time, before one week from filing of this civil application, Shantaben and her son had removed the common wall between room occupied by Shantaben and the room occupied by tenant Narendrabhai and created an access and though there is no right available to Shantaben by breaking open the wall and illegally trespassing into the property and instead, the vacant portion of tenant Narendra ought to have been delivered to the applicant and by alleging this conduct of Shantaben and her son, a case is tried to be put up in present application that respondents have committed breach of the interim order passed by this Court in civil application filed in first appeal in terms of Para.4(a) and, therefore, this is nothing but an illegal entry and alienation of property and physical possession thereof and, therefore, under the circumstances, the aforesaid reliefs have been sought by the applicant. 6. To meet with this civil application, an affidavit-in-reply is filed by Shantaben Jayantibhai Patel, who alleged to have committed breach of the said position which other was to be preserved as it is in the first appeal and it is submitted that several orders passed by this Court in the first appeal proceeding which is pending for final adjudication. 7. Having heard Mr. M.B. Gandhi, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate for the respondents, it has been noticed by the Court that the suit which was filed by the applicant was turned down and rejected by categorically mentioning that the applicant - original plaintiff has miserably failed in proving that Benami property was purchased in the name of Shankarlal Harjivandas Patel. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned advocate for the respondents, it has been noticed by the Court that the suit which was filed by the applicant was turned down and rejected by categorically mentioning that the applicant - original plaintiff has miserably failed in proving that Benami property was purchased in the name of Shankarlal Harjivandas Patel. It appears from the record that in the civil application, the Court has granted the interim relief in terms of Para.4(a) by directing respondents not to transfer or alienate the property mentioned in Para.4(a) till final hearing of the first appeal. Said order dated 19.2.2007 reads as under: “Heard Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate for the applicant. None present on behalf of the respondents. Considering the fact that main First Appeal is already admitted, during the pendency of the First Appeal, interim relief, as prayed for in paragraph 4 (a) of the application is granted and the respondents are restrained from transferring or alienating the property mentioned in paragraph 4 (a) of the application till the final hearing of First Appeal. This Civil Application is allowed to aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.” 8. Coming to the issue of alteration and removal of wall etc., as alleged by the applicant, first of all it appears from the civil application that no specific details are provided as to when the common wall was damaged. There are also no specific reference about earlier orders passed by this Court and, therefore, the Court finds that this application is a very brief and vague application, on the basis of which straightway it is not possible for this Court to consider the request made by the applicant. 9. In addition to this, it is emerging from the record that undisputedly the present applicant is residing in the property, namely, Bungalow No. 11B and for the time being, had nothing to do with Bungalow No. 11A as the applicant's rights are still to be crystallized in the pending first appeal. So to grant any relief at this stage would tantamount to travelling beyond the main relief which was granted in terms of Para.4(a). So to grant any relief at this stage would tantamount to travelling beyond the main relief which was granted in terms of Para.4(a). It is also emerging from the record that on earlier occasion, two civil applications have also been submitted, namely, Civil Application No. 3153 of 2015 which was filed for the purpose of seeking additional evidence to be produced on record and another Civil Application No. 2153 of 2015 filed with a prayer to amend the memo of appeal as well as to add Para.4AA Now, these two civil applications are ordered to be heard along with main first appeal which is expedited being First Appeal No. 3582 of 2006 by an order dated 23.6.2015 10. Yet another order is noticed by this Court which persuades the Court not to grant the relief at this stage of the proceeding is the order dated 19.12.2014 passed in Civil Application (for direction) No. 13579 of 2014. 11. Said Civil Application (for direction) No. 13579 of 2014 was also with a view to see that the construction which was going on was alleged to be in violation of the interim order passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 10980 of 2006 on 19.2.2007 Now, the Court has interpreted this interim relief which was granted in terms of Para.4(a) and has observed in Para.5 as under: “…In the opinion of this court, dealing with the property would mean dealing with the property with a third party by way of sale, lease, rent, mortgage etc. As is apparent on a plain reading of the order dated 19th February, 2007, the court has not directed the parties to maintain status quo qua the disputed property. Under the circumstances, the submission that the respondents have committed breach of the order passed by this court does not merit acceptance.” 12. Therefore, almost in an identical situation, the Court not only has clarified the meaning of interim order granted in terms of Para.4(a), but has also clarified that any construction going on may not amount to a breach. Now, it is appearing that this order dated 19.12.2014 which has been passed has not been mentioned anywhere in civil application which, according to the Court, was obligatory on the part of the applicant. 13. Now, it is appearing that this order dated 19.12.2014 which has been passed has not been mentioned anywhere in civil application which, according to the Court, was obligatory on the part of the applicant. 13. In furtherance of this, it has also been noticed that similar request was made to appoint a commissioner to visit the site and have an inspection of the property and report to the Court has also not been accepted, as visible from the order dated 19.12.2014 passed in Civil Application No. 13580 of 2014. Now, these two orders were not brought to the notice by the applicant in the present civil application. 14. Yet another circumstance which is relevant to be considered is that said deceased Narendrabhai Shah, who was a tenant in part of the portion of property i.e. Bungalow No. 11A, had executed a Will on 3.8.2017 in which there is a reference with regard to the property in which the deceased Narendrabhai Shah had admitted that respondents were the landlord and, therefore, all these issues are such which cannot be ignored at this juncture, more particularly when there seems to be no breach of the interim order in terms of Para.4(a) which has also been clarified by this Court on earlier occasion. Granting of any relief on the premise on which the application is presented is to interject the issues to be adjudicated in the first appeal. 15. One additional factor also to be considered by this Court is that almost similar photographs are visible on record when this Court has dealt with the issues with regard to the construction which was being put in the month of December, 2014. The applicant has, in the present civil application, also chosen not to give any specific details as to when the wall was removed and the photographs which have been attached are of which date and, therefore, conspicuous silence is maintained in the application which does not inspire any confidence in favour of the applicant and this is more so when the earlier applications which have been dealt with by this Court have not been brought to the notice of this Court. It has been clarified in the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shantaben Jayantibhai Patel that the door was badly affected by pest and, therefore, during the life-time of tenant Shri Shah, the door was removed to avoid effect of pest for entire premises which was replaced by a single brick partition wall as the vacant possession of tenanted premises is handed over to the landlord and the removal of the said portion in any way cannot be termed as breach of the order of this Court. It has been averred that only with a view to create complication and some right by contending, the present application is moved. A specific averment is also visible in Para.10 of the application that no equity is to be created in any manner and, therefore, to pass any order as prayed for in the application would rather complicate the complex issues which are entangled in the first appeal. Even almost similar kind of relief has not been entertained by this Court on earlier occasion and, therefore, the Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage of the proceedings, the reliefs prayed for in the civil application are not possible to granted. Hence, the present civil application being devoid of merits is rejected. 16. However, in view of the fact that first appeal is of the year 2006 and there are allegations inter-se about use and misuse of the property which is reflecting from this application as well as from earlier applications, the Court deems it proper to list the main First Appeal No. 3582 of 2006 for final hearing peremptorily in the 2nd week of January, 2018.