IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8157 OF 2008 Mr. Rajesh P. Bhalerao & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. M/s. Hetul Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin with Ms. Soumya Srikrishna i/b. M/s. S.K. Legal & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr. A.P. Wachasunder a/w. Ms. Sameena Hasan & S.S. Deshpande i/b. L.J. Law for Respondents 1 to 6. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 16th JULY 2009. P.C. :- This Writ Petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court on 27th November 2008 in Misc. Civil Application No.53 of 2007 in Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2007. The Petitioners are the Original Plaintiffs whereas the Respondents before me are the Original Defendants. 2. The learned Trial Judge has rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioners – Plaintiffs by the order dated 7th April 2007. 3. Aggrieved by this order the Petitioners preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal and the same has also been dismissed on 27th November 2008. 4. When this matter was argued for some time, I inquired from the parties as to whether during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court was there any ad- interim/interim order under which construction and development on the subject property had been stayed. Both sides informed me that during the pendency of the proceedings, there was no construction and development at site. 5. My attention was also invited to a joint pursis which was filed in the Lower Appellate Court, copy of which is annexed as annexure `K’ to this Writ Petition. 6. Although this pursis was on record, I inquired from the Counsel appearing for the Respondents as to whether any construction at site is being carried out and after taking instructions in all fairness, the Counsel stated that no development or construction activity is being carried on at site. 7. In the light of this, and considering the fact that the Petition is directed against an interim order, I suggested to both sides that instead of hearing elaborate arguments at this stage and making any observations, interest of justice would be sub-served if the Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2007 and dispose it off within a time frame. 8. Both sides agreed to this course of action. It was also suggested to both sides that if no construction activity is going on at site and since the Court below is being directed to dispose off the matter expeditiously whether the Respondents would make a statement that no construction will be carried on for the period within which the Suit is directed to be disposed off. The Counsel appearing for the Respondents on instructions makes a statement that he has no objection if this Court directs that no construction activity shall be carried on but he prays that some protection be granted in the event the Suit is not disposed off within the time stipulated by in this Court’s order. 9. I am of the opinion that the Counsel’s request is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice :- 1. Hearing of Regular Civil Suit No.35 of 2007 is expedited. 2. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 30th July 2009. 3. The Trial Court to endeavour and dispose off the said Suit on or before 31st January 2010. 4. In the event the Suit is not disposed off as directed above, liberty is granted to the Defendants/Respondents before me to apply to the Trial Court for vacating the interim arrangement/order and if such an application is made, the Trial Court to hear and dispose it off uninfluenced by the fact that this Court had granted an interim stay on construction and development. 5. Subject to above, the Respondents – Original Defendants are restrained from carrying out any construction at the site till the Suit is heard and disposed off. 6. This order is passed by consent but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. All pleas on merits are kept open. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed off with the above consented order. No order as to costs. Needless to state that both sides should co-operate in the early disposal of the Suit by not seeking unnecessary adjournments. (S.C. Dharmadhikari,J.)