1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1842 OF 2010 Manwat Municipal Council, Manwat, Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioner. Versus Ramkrushna s/o. Pandurang Malwade and another ....Respondents. Shri. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. Y.R. Barhate, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri. P.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2735 OF 2010 Ramkrushna s/o. Pandurang Malwade, ......Petitioner. Versus Manwat Municipal Council, Manwat, Dist. Parbhani. ......Respondents. Shri. Y.R. Barhate, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri. P.N. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 13th April, 2010 2 PER COURT : 1. The order passed by the Principal District Judge, Parbhani on 9.2.2010 below Exh. 5 in Misc. Application (RJE) No. 18/2010 is the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions. 2. The First Appellate Court while entertaining the application presented by respondent herein, appellant before the First Appellate Court, directed the Municipal Council to restore the possession of the appellant within 8 days from the date of order. A decree is stated to have been passed against the respondent No. 1 herein, directing his removal out of possession in Regular Civil Suit No. 3/2009. Admittedly, although the Municipal Council/petitioner herein is directed to remove the possession of the respondent herein, he was not made party to the suit and the decree was secured in his absence. The respondent with the leave of the Court presented an appeal. In the meantime, the Municipal Council in execution of the decree has removed him out of possession. The respondent, therefore, was justified in approaching the District Judge seeking restoration of possession. It is also brought to my notice that there is a decree passed against the Municipal Council, restraining the Council perpetually from dispossessing the respondent by a competent Civil Court on 19.11.2008. There is no appeal presented raising exception to the said decree by the Municipal Council. The action of the Municipal Council was obviously in violation of the decree passed by the Civil Court. The First Appellate Court was, therefore, justified in 3 passing impugned order. 3. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. The petitions, therefore, need to be rejected and the same are accordingly rejected. The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the pending appeal within three months from today. Interim relief stands vacated. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp1842.10