1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4993 OF 2008 Shivaji Sitaram Mang since deceased through Legal representatives & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shivappa Gurappa Shintre since deceased through his Legal representatives .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioners. Mr.S.G.Karandikar for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16th April 2007 passed by the learned District Judge. It will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief. The present petitioners are the original defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs. The trial Court decreed the suit and an appeal was preferred by 2 the present petitioners. The learned District Judge on 11th April 2007 passed an order of remand by directing that the trial Court should frame an issue of tenancy and refer the same under section 85A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The impugned order has been passed after the disposal of the appeal. The effect of the impugned order is that there will be temporary injunction operating against the petitioners till the disposal of the suit after remand. 2. It must be stated here that the order of remand was challenged by the respondents by preferring an Appeal from Order which has been disposed of by order dated 17th July 2008. This Court modified the order of remand by observing that it will not be necessary for the trial Court to make a reference about the issue of tenancy and the trial Court will abide by the finding on issue of tenancy after the same is adjudicated upon in the pending proceedings under section 32G of the said Act of 1948. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the parties 3 pointed out that a revision application arising out of proceedings under section 32-G the said Act of 1948 is pending before the Tribunal at Kolhapur. 4. The order impugned in this writ petition is in the nature of an order of interim relief pending the final disposal of the suit. The issue regarding tenancy is subject matter of the pending proceedings before the Tribunal. The interests of justice will be served if the Tribunal is directed to decide the pending revision application within a period of six months. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that at present there is no Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal available at Kolhapur and therefore the Tribunal at Pune is holding charge of the Tribunal at Kolhapur. It is obvious that the revision application will have to be decided by the Tribunal at Pune if the Tribunal at Kolhapur is not available. 5. As the impugned order is in the nature of interim injunction , the parties always have a 4 remedy available under Rule 4 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) Subject to what is observed above, the impugned order is confirmed. (b) The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune is directed to decide the pending revision application No.MRT-KP-5/99 as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 31st January 2010. (c) All contentions of the parties in the pending revision application are expressly kept open and the revision application be decided on its own merits. (d) Writ petition is disposed of in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)