1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2709 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5357 OF 2006 Shri Lingraj S. Trigule and Ors. ...Applicants. v. Shri Bhimashankar G. Patil and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Shrishail Sakhare , adv. For the Applicant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2011. P.C. 1 The learned counsel for the applicants/petitioner makes a statement that notice has been served on the respondents. However, none appears. His main grievance is that while allowing the writ petition no. 5357 of 2006 by order dated 17th August, 2007, this Court had directed Additional Collector, Solapur to hear the parties and to pass reasoned order on Revision Application No.5 of 2004 and the parties were directed to maintain status-quo till the decision of the revision application. According to him, even though period of two and half years has passed, Additional Collector has not decided revision application and the respondents are obstructing petitioners from using the cart road. 2 2 On perusal of the order, it appears that it needs no modification nor any clarification. If there is any violation of that order, petitioner may seek appropriate remedy under the law. The learned counsel contends that if the revision application could be decided within specified period, problems would not arise. 3 Therefore, Additional Collector, Solapur is hereby directed to decide that revision application within three months from this day without fail. Application stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)