1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3035 OF 2008 Dhondiram Krishna Hake & Others ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others ...Respondents Mr.Nitesh Bhatekar i/b Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the petitioner Mr.S.D.Rayrikar for respondent nos.1 to 4 Ms Manisha Shekhar i/b M/s.J.Shekhar & Co. for respondent nos.5 & 7. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31 st December 2007 by which the trial court directed that the application for temporary injunction made by the petitioners at Exhibit-18 shall be taken up for hearing. In the impugned order, it is noted that though the suit was repeatedly fixed for recording of evidence, various excuses were given by the petitioners by filing various applications and therefore hearing has not commenced. The Trial Court has referred to the ad-interim order of injunction passed in favour of the petitioners. 2 When this writ petition came up before this court on 2 29 th April 2008, this court issued notice to the respondents and by way of ad-interim relief directed that hearing of the application at Exhibit-18 shall not be proceeded with. This court made it clear that the hearing of the suit will proceed. 3 On 2 nd September 2009, time was granted to the petitioners to take instructions as to whether any witness has been examined by the petitioner after ad- interim order was passed by this court on 29 th April 2008. This court made it clear that if it is found that no evidence was adduced till that date, the application at Exhibit-18 will have to be heard by the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions stated that recording of the evidence could not proceed as the State Government has taken a stand that this writ petition is pending in this court. If notwithstanding the order passed by this court on 29 th April 2008, the trial court did not proceed with the hearing of the suit, it was open for the petitioners to apply to this court for appropriate directions. Writ petition is pending in this court for last one and half year. As the suit is not proceeding, the application for interim relief at Exhibit-18 will have to be heard as directed by the impugned order. There is an ad-interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners in the said application. The application for interim relief is not being heard and 3 therefore, the respondents are suffering the ad-interim order. As the hearing of the suit has not proceeded from 31 st December 2007, the trial court was justified in holding that the hearing of the interim application must proceed as there is an ad-interim order passed in favour of the petitioners. Hence, no interference can be made with the impugned order. The trial court will proceed with the hearing of the application at Exhibit18. Writ petition is rejected. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. JUDGE