1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 638/2003 (RAJARAM RAOJI ASWAR VERSUS MADHUKAR TRIMBAKRAO JAYALE) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri L.A. Mohta, Counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 28 , 2011 . None for the petitioner. It appears from the order-sheet that the petitioner is not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner- plaintiff challenging the order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant-respondent from obstructing the petitioner from using the way shown by the Letters ABCD in the map. The order passed by the trial Court on 18.10.1999 rejecting the application for temporary injunction was confirmed by the first appellate Court by the judgment dated 04.12.2002. The petitioner has challenged both the orders by filing the instant petition. It appears that this Court has, by an order dated24.06.2003, issued Rule in the matter. The petition has not been heard for nearly eight years and it is most likely that the suit filed by the petitioner in the year 1999 must have been decided by now. Even assuming that the suit is not decided, it would not be in the interest of justice to decide the 2 writ petition on merits and it would be rather necessary to direct the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible in case it is not decided. Even otherwise, a direction for an expeditious disposal of the suit was granted by the first appellate Court by the judgment dated 04.12.2002, which is impugned in the instant petition and it is most likely that the suit must have been decided by now. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and within a period of Six Months, in case it is not decided by now. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE