1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1661 OF 2011 Suryakant Bhau Ghadi & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Chandrakant Krishna Ghadi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.P. Thorat for the Petitioners Mr.V.S.Gokhale for the Respondent CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 21st SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. 2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr Gokhale appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. 3. Respondents have filed Regular Civil Suit No.5 of 2010 in the Court 2 of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Devgad, District Sindhudurg so as to seek an order of injunction against various defendants including the present petitioner who is defendant no.1. In the said suit, the respondents filed an application on 15.3.2010 by way of interim relief application at Exhibit 32. The said application was rejected, against which the respondents filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.40 of 2010 in the Court of District Judge at Sindhudurg. The learned District Judge by his order dated 22.12.2010 granted application at Exhibit 32 by passing a specific order and partition order was also passed so as to clarify the nature of the order. Being aggrieved by that order dated 22.12.2010 the petitioner, original defendant no.1 has filed this petition. In the course of hearing learned Advocate Mr.Gokhale appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed out that the application at Exhibit 32 was filed seeking appropriate reliefs set out therein so that the respondents rights could be protected for the period 12.7.2010 to 1.7.2011 being the relevant period during which, according to the respondents they were entitled to perform pooja and other religious functions. Learned Advocate Mr. Gokhale submitted that now that the said period is over, in immediate future there is no question of respondents seeking to establish their rights to perform 3 pooja , as according to the learned Advocate Mr.Gokhale, the right to perform pooja would come only after 12 years i.e. some time in the year 2022. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned Advocate Mr.Gokhale across the bar, as also on the perusal of the application Exhibit 32, I am inclined to observe that as of today the order of injunction against the petitioner is not operating and that if the respondents wish to protect their interest by seeking appropriate orders from the court, they will have to do so again as and when their turn is to commence. Hence this finding in order dated 22.12.2010 cannot be treated as binding upon the present petitioner. Surely, as and when a fresh application will be made, after about 10 years and 6 months, the court will be able to decide the matter depending upon the facts and the law then prevailing. With this clarification, petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) 4