1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4418 OF 2007 Haresh Pribhdas Bhojwani .. Petitioner Versus Chander Metharam Rochani & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.R.M.Agarwal for petitioner Mr.P.D.Dalvi for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11th January 2008 P.C. . This petition is directed against an order passed by the trial court on 24th April 2007 rejecting Exh.78 which is an application preferred by the present petitioner. 2. It is undisputed before me that the petitioner is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2006 which is filed for perpetual injunction and against defendants restraining them from interfering with 2 petitioner’s possession with the suit property. Original defendant No.2 who is respondent No.2 before me appeared in the suit and filed written statement. Initially, the order of status quo was passed in favour of petitioners and subsequently taking advantage of the fact that the premises were locked, respondent No.2 removed the lock put by the petitioner and placed his own lock which is in contravention of the order of status quo. Earlier application Exh.17 was filed by the petitioner for restoration of possession which application was opposed. Another application Exh.18 was also filed. During the pendency of these applications, respondent No.2 applied for permission to cross examine the petitioner which was also rejected. On 15th November 2006, in W.P.7486 of 2006 which was filed by respondent No.2, this Court granted permission to respondent No.2 to cross examine the petitioner but on the condition that the matter would proceed on day to day basis. 3 Petitioner was cross examined so also other witnesses. Respondent No.2 submitted list of witnesses. Petitioner once again reiterated his prayer for restoration of possession by seeking mandatory orders. On the affidavits that are filed in that behalf, petitioner was cross examined by respondent No.2. 3. It is during the pendency of these proceedings that an application Exh.78 was moved by the petitioner praying for early hearing which is also rejected. 4. Mr.Agarwal appearing for petitioner submits that the petitioner would abide by all such directions as are issued by this Court with regard to expeditious disposal of the suit. His request is that hearing of main suit be expedited considering the fact that the petitioner is illegally dispossessed. 4 5. Mr.Dalvi appearing for respondent No.2 on the other hand states that the petitioner has not been dispossessed illegally as contended but brings to my notice orders of the Court below refusing the request of the petitioner for restoration. 6. When this matter was placed on the last occasion, both sides agree that status quo as of today will be maintained and if respondent No.2 claims to be in possession of the property, then, he should deposit some reasonable amount in the court so that the interest of both sides are sufficiently protected during the pendency of litigation. 7. Mr.Dalvi sought time to take instructions. Mr.Agarwal contends that the original agreement which is of leave and licence between the petitioner and one Om Prakash is on the basis that the compensation would be 5 Rs.3500/- per month. Mr.Dalvi states that respondent No.2 would be willing to deposit a sum of Rs.1500/- per month in the Trial court as compensation. 8. In my view, it is not necessary to interfere with the orders under challenge inasmuch as interest of justice would be sub-served if it is directed that hearing of R.C.S.50 of 2006 and Application Exh.18 is expedited. Accordingly, it is directed that the said suit and Exh.18 application be expeditiously heard and disposed of preferably within six months from today. In the light of this statement, petitioner does not press Exh.17 application. However, the application is not pressed also in the light of the inclination of this Court to direct respondent No.2 to deposit some amount without prejudice to rights and contentions of parties. 6 9. In my view, since the petitioner is not pressing the application for appointment of Court Receiver and both sides are ready and willing to have the proceedings decided expeditiously, interest of justice would be sub-served if respondent No.2 is directed to deposit Rs.2000/- per month in the trial court. The deposit will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. In the event the proceedings are not disposed of within the stipulated period or default is committed in compliance with the order of this Court, then liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply for appointment of receiver and for other reliefs including moving this court with a complaint about breach of the order of this Court. 10. Mr.Dalvi states that Rs.2000/- will be deposited by 10th of every month starting from February 2008 till further orders and directions of the trial court. In the event default is 7 committed, petitioner will be at liberty to apply for appointment of receiver. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)