1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6594 OF 2011 Kamal Gulabrao Mane ...Petitioner Versus Chandrakant Govind Garad & Another ...Respondents Mr.R.M.Pethe for the Petitioner CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Looking to the nature of the order passed by the learned District Judge-3, Satara on 17.3.2011 below Exhibit 10 and 14 in Regular Civil Appeal No.58 of 2011, I enquired with learned Advocate for the Petitioner as to who is today in possession of the property in question and the learned Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions from the representative of the petitioner submitted that on account of Order dated 17.3.2011 the respondents are in possession. The said statement is accepted, as made across the bar. 2 2. In my view, the nature of the order is such that the present petitioner is restrained from disturbing the possession of the respondents . Now that the respondents have been put in possession after the order dated 17.3.2011 , the appeal does not survive. Now the appeal is required to be decided at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. Hence following order is passed to dispose of the petition. ORDER 1. No interference is required in the impugned order on account of the petitioners loosing their possession on account of the impugned order. ii. The learned District Judge, before whom the Regular Civil Appeal No.58 of 2011 is pending shall dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 30.07.2012. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)