1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4095 OF 2009 Babarao s/o Nivrutti Jadhav, age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kudala, Taluka Umri, District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1 Pandurang s/o Pundlik Bhorge (Bherge), age: 51 years, Occ: Agril., 2 Sambhaji s/o Nivrutti Jadhav, age: 45 years, Occ: Agri., 3 Pandurang s/o Nivrutti Jadhav, age: 36 years, Occ: Agri., 4 Damu s/o Nivrutti Jadhav, age: 31 years, Occ: Agri., All R/o Kudala, Taluka Umri, District Nanded. Respondents Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.T.Bhagat, advocate for Respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 to 4 served. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 5th May, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.T.Bhagat, learned Counsel for contesting Respondent No.1. 2 Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel appearing for respective parties. 2 Petitioner is raising exception to the order dated 24.03.2009, passed by Additional District Judge-2, Nanded, below Exhibits-6 and 14 in Misc. Civil Application (RJE) No.7 of 2009. 3 It is not necessary to go into factual details of the matter. Suffice it to note that Misc. Civil Application presented by petitioner seeking restoration of Regular Civil Appeal No.216/2002 is pending for consideration before the first appellate Court. It is pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that after presentation of appeal, interest of appellant – petitioner herein was protected by the first appellate Court by granting order of status quo. However, as a result of dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution, order of status quo has come to an end. Petitioner herein has presented Misc. Civil Application claiming restoration of Regular Civil Appeal and for setting aside order of dismissal passed by first appellate Court. During pendency of Misc. Civil Application, an application was presented requesting the Court to grant status quo. Said application was turned down by the first appellate Court. After presentation of instant petition, this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo in view of the order passed on 02.07.2009. 4 In this view of the matter, ends of justice would be met if first appellate Court is directed to decide Misc. Civil Application No.7/2009 presented by petitioner herein, seeking restoration of Regular Civil Appeal No. 216/2002, expeditiously. 3 5 In the result, first appellate Court is directed to decide Misc. Civil Application No.7/2009 for restoration of Regular Civil Appeal by the end of June 2010. In the meantime, order directing the parties to maintain status quo, shall remain operative. 6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff is economically weaker person. As a result of inaction on the part of petitioner, Respondent No.1 is dragged to this Court. Considering facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff is required to be compensated for the inconvenience caused to him. As a precondition for allowing instant writ petition, petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) towards cost payable to Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff. Amount of cost either shall be paid to Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff or to his Counsel. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp409509