1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.823 of 2007. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ 1. Heard. 2. The Respondent No.1 sought interim injunction in suit (RCS No.643/2004). The application for interim injunction was rejected by the trial Court. The Respondent No.1 preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.18/2005 which came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 1.7.2005. 3. Since the suit itself is old one and pending for the trial, it would be in the interest of justice to direct expeditious disposal of the suit if the same is not yet decided. Mr.Deshpande, would submit that the order of injunction may be modified by adding the sentence that the injunction would be operative only till demolition or dispossession is carried out by following due process of law. Mr. Warad, learned advocate supports the injunction order. The request is just and proper. The injunction order can not be treated as blanket protection and would be operative only till Respondent No.1 is dispossessed or the construction is demolished in respect of any part of the disputed property by taking due process. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.19.06.2009. asp/office/wp823.07