1 AO-814-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 814 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1075 OF 2011 in NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1699 OF 2010 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 481 OF 2005 Elite Diagnostic Centre Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Indrajeet Singh Balwant Singh Bhatia & Anr. Respondents Mr. Satish Sharma, Director the appellant present in Court. Ms. Azmin Irani a/w. Manish Doshi i/b. Vimadalal & Co.,Advocates, for the respondent No.1. Mrs. K.K.Soraan, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 26th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Satish Sharma, Director of the Defendant No.2/appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The appeal is preferred against refusal of the trial Court to hear the Notice of Motion No.1699 of 2010 taken out by the defendant N.2 whereby they had prayed to set aside the earlier order of temporary injunction passed in favour 2 AO-814-11.sxw of the plaintiff/respondent No.1, in Notice of Motion No.338 of 2005, his grievance is that the plaintiff had made illegal and unauthorised construction and changed the structure sometime in 1997 or thereafter and thereby he has endangered the whole building, including the portion which is in occupation of the defendant No.2, who was the original owner. The trial Court refused to go into the merits on the ground of delay and laches. In fact, the defendant No.2 originally was not a party to the suit. He came to know about the order later on. He took out Chamber Summons which was initially rejected, but in appeal, he was allowed to be impleaded as a party. He was impleaded on 18.9.2008. Notice of Motion for setting aside the earlier order was taken out on 25.3.2010 i.e. about 1½ year after he was actually impleaded as a defendant in the suit. 3. Admittedly, the suit s pending since 2005. Both the defendants have filed the written statement, issues are framed and even the affidavits in examination-in-chief are filed and the plaintiff's witnesses are under cross- examination. In these circumstances, in my opinion, no purpose will be served by going back to the Notice of Motion and re-hearing. The interest of justice will be better served if the suit itself is expedited and disposed of as early as possible. 4. Therefore, while the appeal stands dismissed, the trial Court is 3 AO-814-11.sxw hereby directed to expedite and dispose of Suit No.481/2005 as early as possible and, in any case, by the end of December, 2011. 5. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, C.A. does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Mr. Satish Sharma, Director of the appellant, seeks stay to this order to approach the Supreme Court. Request is turned down. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)