1 wp2214.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 2214 of 2010 Mr. Shantaram Vitthal Shelke ...Petitioner v/s. Dhondiram Vitthal Shelke ...Respondent Mr. R.M. Hardas i/b. P.N. Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. B.P. Abhale for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 22 2011. P.C. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 4th March, 2010 vide which the Application filed by the present Petitioner for grant of police protection came to be rejected. 2. The Petitioner has filed a suit for injunction restraining the Respondents-defendants from interfering with his right to have 1/4th share in the common wealth and further not to injuct it from taking the water by an underground pipeline. In the said suit, an application below exhibit 5 is filed. Vide order dated 21st April, 2005 an ad-interim injunction has been 2 wp2214.10.sxw granted contending that the Respondents were disobeying the orders of injunction application for grant of police protection came to be filed. The same is rejected on the ground that the Petitioner-plaintiff has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he is sowing the crop of wheat and further that it was the season for harvesting. Shri Hardas, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner makes a categorical statement that an order of injunction is still operative. 3. In that view of the matter, I find that interest of justice would be subserved by permitting the Petitioner to file fresh application for grant of police protection. In the event, there is a breach of injunction order and if that such an application is made, it would be decided by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. 4. Taking into consideration that the suit is of the year 2005, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)