IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 144 OF 2006 SMT. RUKMINI P.VERNEKAR AND 3 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI GOPAL VERNEKAR AND 28 ORS., ... Respondents Ms. Malar, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 3rd March, 2011 P.C. Heard Ms. Malar, learned Counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. On 9th February, 2011, the petitioners were directed to take steps to serve the unserved respondents subject to payment of costs within two weeks, failing which it was ordered that the petition as against the unserved respondents would stand dismissed. At that relevant time, respondent nos.29(a) to 29(d), 1(b), 2(a), 2(c), 2(e) and 2(g) were not served. Thereafter, the petitioners had only paid costs, but no steps have been taken till date. In view of the order dated 9th February, 2011, the petition as against the above referred respondents stands dismissed. The petition is filed challenging the order of refusing injunction. The impugned order as against the other respondents/defendants has become final. There cannot be two separate orders against the two different set of defendants/ respondents. Hence, as a necessary consequence, the petition as against the respondents, who have been served also deserves to be dismissed and consequently stands dismissed. 3. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed accordingly. 4. Interim order dated 18th October, 2006 stands vacated. 5. Since the suit is of the year 1990, the trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose of the suit expeditiously. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA