1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6657 OF 2011 Neral Gram Panchayat & Others ...Petitioners Versus Shri Sohail Mohammad Siddiqui Mulla & Others ...Respondents Mr.V.A.Gangal & Ms. C.K.Nirmale for the Petitioners Mr.K.H.Karnalkar for the Respondent No.1 Mr.P.M.Patil i/b. Vindu P. Pandey for the Respondent nos.2 and 3 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 26th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 and 3 respectively waive service of the notice. By consent petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.7.2011 passed by learned District Judge No.3, Raigad in Civil Misc. Appeal No.58 of 2010. The Exhibit 5 application filed by the Respondent no.1 was rejected by order dated 6.10.2009. On account of that development, 2 the petitioners demolished the fencing and thereafter the present respondent nos.1 challenged the said order dated 6.10.2009 by filing Civil Misc. Appeal No.58 of 2010 on or about 9.11.2009. A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.7.2011 goes to indicate that by the said order the petitioners are directed to bring into existence the status quo which was prevailing prior to the dismissal of Exhibit 5 application. 3. After hearing learned Advocates on both sides, I am inclined to observe that if the hearing of Exhibit 5 application was conducted in proper manner and the order rejecting the said application was passed, the petitioners could as well take benefit of the said order and proceed to take the action which they wanted to take. The view of the Learned District Judge that as the suit was pending, before the petitioners could take action they should have taken the permission of the court before whom the suit was pending can’t be accepted. If the application for appropriate injunction filed by the Respondent no. 1 - plaintiff was rejected by the trial court that would go to show that the trial court decided the case at the stage of prima face level against the respondent no.1 and therefore the present petitioners in a way 3 were permitted to proceed with the action they intended to take. In my view, once application at Exhibit 5 was rejected and if some action was required to be taken then there was no question of petitioners seeking permission of the court. If such a course is accepted and followed then where is the question of seeking relief by way of interim relief application. It is clear that the petitioners acted only after Exhibit 5 application was rejected. It is not the case of the Respondent no.1 that at the time when the fencing was removed by the petitioners there was an order of injunction running against the petitioners. If this be so, the action on the part of the petitioners cannot be treated as illegal. By the order impugned the learned District Judge, Raigad has directed to bring into existence status quo which was prevailing prior to rejection of application at Exhibit 5. Such a course was not permissible in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence impugned order is required to be set aside. 4. At this stage, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 submitted that the petitioners may now put the said road for use of the members of the public. Needless to mention that if the respondent no.1 succeeds in the suit, he can approach the trial court and apply for 4 appropriate orders so as to protect his interest. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be better if Regular Civil Suit filed by the respondent no.1 being Suit No.64 of 2009 is disposed of at an early date. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondent nos,2 and 3 submitted that they have no objection if the suit is ordered to be disposed of at early date. Hence following order is passed to dispose of this petition. ORDER i) The impugned order dated 16.7.2011 passed by the learned District Judge-3, Raigad, Alibag in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 58 of 2010 is set aside. ii) It is hereby ordered that the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karjat, District Raigad, shall to hear and dispose of the Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31.12.2012. iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)