1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1488 OF 2008 Sangita Suresh Waghate .. Petitioner Versus Dilip Anandrao Patil & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.U.R.Mankapure for petitioner Mr.Anil Kumar Patil for respondent No.1 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th March 2008 P.C. . This petition is directed against an order passed by the Dist.Judge, Sangli in Misc.Civil Appeal No.20 of 2008. 2. The directions in the impugned order are thus:- "Appeal is allowed with costs through out. The Impugned order is set aside. 2 Application Exh.5 temporary injunction filed in R.C.S.No.155 of 2007 is granted with costs". ". Defendant No.1 is restrained temporarily from interfering into plaintiff’s possession over disputed industrial shed to run the business of M/s.Pragati Engineering Works, till further orders or till 15/4/2008 whichever is earlier shall be subject to further orders of the trial court in the main suit". ". The trial court shall expedite the hearing of main suit. Parties to cooperate. Respondent No.2 is directed to obtain necessary deposit and necessary charges to provide temporary new electricity connection to "disputed industrial shed" to plaintiff to run the 3 foundry therein as far as possible after two weeks from the date of this order." 2. Considerable argument has been made by Mr.Mankapure with regard to disposal of the application and the application for interim injunction (Exh.5). His grievance is that if the respondent plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit bearing No.155 of 2007, then, it was the plaintiffs duty to have pursued the application for temporary injunction filed in the trial court. The plaintiff does not pursue the same, remained absent and thereafter makes a grievance before the appellate court. That apart, in his submission the entire version before the appellate court is contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff and there was no occasion for the lower appellate court to have passed temporary orders in mandatory form in favour of plaintiff. 3. Any opinion expressed upon these pleas 4 which have been denied by Mr.Patil, would prejudice the case of both sides. The plaintiff is contending that the petitioner before me has created a lease in favour of plaintiff with regard to Plot No.72 (30 x 20 and 45 x 45). The lease has been created in favour of the plaintiff allegedly in respect of this shed which is located in the industrial estate at Palus Dist.Sangli. The case of the petitioner is that there is no such lease and that lease deed is deliberately kept back from the trial court and upon a photocopy relief is sought. Further, the plaintiff is not concerned with this property but has an adjacent shed. At no stage was there any question of creating lease in favour of plaintiff. All contentions have been denied. There is no question of any electricity connection being disconnected by the present petitioner and all such averments in the plaint and application for interim relief are false. 5 4. The version of the original plaintiff appears to be that he is in possession pursuant to a lease and that attempts have been made to disconnect the electricity connection and respondent No.2 Electric Company has indeed disconnected the electric supply. 5. To my mind, the trial court should not have proceeded in the manner that it has done. If the respondent No.1 - plaintiff was absent and had indeed applied for setting aside the ex parte order dismissing the application for temporary injunction, then, the trial court would have been well advised either to dispose of the said application finally or make some ad-interim / ad-hoc arrangement so as to see that the plaintiff is not non-suited. The lower appellate court also should have made some ad-interim arrangement and not disposed of the appeal itself. Highly contentious issues were raised and in such circumstances, the lower appellate 6 court should not have embarked upon and enquired and concluded the matter, more so, when the application for setting aside the order is pending. 6. To my mind, this Court should not express any opinion on the merits when the matter is at interlocutory stage. In my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice at this stage. (a) Application to set aside the ex parte order dismissing the temporary injunction application preferred by respondent No.1 plaintiff is allowed; (b) Temporary Injunction application is restored to the file of the trial court for disposal afresh and without being influenced by any earlier observations so also observations made by 7 the lower appellate court; (c) Petitioner as well as respondent No.1 to maintain status quo as prevailing on the date of the application for temporary injunction (1st February 2008) till the application for injunction is heard and disposed of. (d) The trial court to endeavour and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance of parties. All contentions of both sides are expressly kept open. (e) Till the application for temporary injunction is heard, if the respondent No.2 electric company has disconnected the electric supply already but the original plaintiff desires any temporary connection, then, depending 8 upon the terms and conditions of such supply so also without in any manner prejudicing the rights and contentions of the petitioner, respondent No.2 may supply electricity. However, that would by no stretch of imagination be construed as an act of consent by the petitioner - original defendant No.1; (f) The order passed by the lower appellate court is quashed and set aside and substituted as above. Petition disposed of in the above terms. (g) Needless to state that merely because this court has permitted the original plaintiff to approach electric company and the electric company being directed to consider the request in accordance with its own terms and conditions, does not mean that any 9 equities are created in favour of the original plaintiff or any right in respect of the property/shed is accepted. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)