1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4218/2002 (SHEIKH ARIF JAINUDDIN VERSUS CHIEF OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HINGANGHAT & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S. Chandurkar, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Waghmare h/f Shri De, counsel for the R-1. Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, counsel for the R-2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 17 , 2011 . The respondent no.2 is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the petitioner and the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 had sought temporary injunction restraining the petitioner and the respondent no.1 from removing the shop of the respondent no.2 from the suit site. The trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction in favour of the respondent no.2. The order passed by the trial Court was confirmed by the first appellate Court in an appeal filed by the petitioner. The concurrent orders passed by both the Courts were challenged by the petitioner by this petition. It appears that this Court had not granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioner. With the result, the injunction granted in favour of the respondent no.2 restraining the petitioner and the respondent no.1 from removing the shop of the respondent no.2 is in operation since 2002. 2 It is informed to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.2 that the trial Court had proceeded with the suit filed by the respondent no.2 and the matter is fixed for judgment on 18.11.2011. In the aforesaid set of facts, it would be necessary to dispose of this writ petition as no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner and the suit is fixed for judgment on 18.11.2011. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged. JUDGE APTE