1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5494 of 2009 1. Bhimrao s/o. Govindrao Chavhan, Age 70 years, Occupation Agi. R/o. Village Ranjni, Tq. Ghansawangi District Jalna. 2. Radhakishan s/o. Govindrao Chavhan, Age 60 years, Occupation Agri. R/o. As above. Petitioners (original plaintiffs) Versus 1. Keshav s/o. Tukaram Savde, Age 70 years, Occupation Agri. 2. Baban s/o. Pandit Savde, Age 40 years, Occupation Agri. 3. Ram s/o. Pandit Savde Age 38 years, Occupation Agri. 4. Laxman s/o. Pandit Savde Age 36 years, Occupation Agri. All r/o. Chandepephal, Tq. Sindkhede District Buldhana. Respondents ( original defendants) Mr. M.B.W. Khan Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent. 2 CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3rd May, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners are raising exception to the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Jalna dated 20 th July, 2009 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 31/2009, thereby allowing the appeal presented by the respondent herein. 3. The petitioners/original plaintiffs instituted a suit bearing R.C.S. No. 334/2009 claiming a decree of perpetual injunction against the respondents/original defendants. In the pending suit, the plaintiffs presented an application at Exhibit 5 claiming temporary injunction during continuance of the suit. The trial court, after hearing the respective parties was pleased to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiffs by virtue of the order dated 30/4/2009. The respondents/original defendants challenged the order passed by the trial court by presenting a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 31/2009, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, vide order dated 20 th July, 2009, which is impugned in the present petition. 4. I have gone through the judgments recorded by the courts below. It is to be noted that the order of temporary injunction initially issued by the trial court on 30/4/2009 was operative till the disposal of the application at Exhibit 5 on 30/6/2009. Although the First Appellate Court dealing with the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 31/2009 has reversed the judgment and order passed by the trial court, in view of the decision 3 rendered on 20 th July, 2009, however, the order passed by the First Appeal Court has been stayed by this court vide order dated 21 st August, 2009. The net result is that the order of injunction issued against the defendants/respondents and in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners is operating. The order passed in favour of the plaintiffs/petitioners thus appears to be operative since 30 th April, 2009 till today. 5. Considering these facts, the petition, which is directed against the interim order in respect of grant of temporary injunction can be disposed of, by directing the trial court to decide the pending suit expeditiously. The interim order passed by this court on 21 st August, 2009 shall remain operative till the decision n the suit by the trial court. The trial court is, therefore, directed to decide the pending Regular Civil Suit No. 334/2009, as expeditiously las possible and preferably by the end of the year 2010. The order of injunction issued in favour of the plaintiffs and restraining the defendants from causing interference in possession of the plaintiffs, shall remain operative till the decision of the suit. Rule made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE grt/wp