1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 1 OF 2007 (Murlidhar Sitaram Chimankar vs. Smt. Kushal Manindranath Bose & Anr. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 12, 2008. Heard Shri Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent No.1. The matter was heard for quite some time yesterday and on the request of the parties, it was adjourned to today. Yesterday, a statement was made that after the impugned order dated 16.9.2006, the Collector has decided the grievance pending before it in favour of present respondents i.e. original plaintiff. Thereafter the present appellant has challenged the said order of the Collector in appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner has stayed that order. It is, therefore, apparent that the grievance in relation to order of Collector is being considered independently by the Competent Authority in terms of provisions of Bombay 2 Prohibition Act. It was further asserted that the bar of jurisdiction insofar as Civil Suit is concerned, is being raised in appeal before this Court but in written statement there was no such contention. Shri Gandhi, learned counsel has contended that the Collector has passed the order in favour of present respondents because of directions issued by the Civil Court and the Collector was not authorised to so view the matter. Shri Sambre, learned counsel points out that this grievance can be considered by the appellate forum and he further points out that no such directions were issued by the Civil Court. He further states that the impugned order dated 16.9.2006 was to operate till passing of orders by the Collector. As the Collector has passed the order, the said order has become infructuous and present appeal has also become infructuous. The facts demonstrate that the impugned order dated 16.9.2006 was to last only till the adjudication of controversy by the Collector and that adjudication is already over. With the result, the appeal has become infructuous. The legality or otherwise of the order of the Collector is pending before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority is free to examine at the earliest without 3 being influenced by any observations made by the Civil Court and by this Court. Shri Sambre, learned counsel states that after the order passed by the Collector and stay granted by the Commissioner, the respondent has moved appropriate application for amendment of plaint before the trial Court. The present appellant is also free to raise necessary pleas by amending the written statement, if occasion arises. In the circumstances, nothing survives in the present A.O. The same is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. JUDGE *GS.