1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5440/2010. Muslim Samaj Bahuddeshiya Sanstha, Akola. -: VERSUS :- The Collector, Akola and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 09, 2010. Heard Shri Anil S. Mardikar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri Amol Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri S. Dewani, learned Counsel for respondent no.3/caveator. Shri Dewani, learned counsel has made a grievance that though there was caveat already filed, it was suppressed and interim orders was obtained in vacation on 04.11.2010. He points out that though initially knowledge of caveat was disputed, lateron the petitioners have admitted that notice of caveat was received by them on 25.10.2010 and petition was filed on 01.11.2010. Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel on merits states that the land has been allotted to the petitioner by the State Government for construction of open theater and 2 petitioners have accordingly completed that work. In this situation, Municipal Corporation could not have permitted respondent no.3 to start work of erection of any shopping complex on same site. He points out that the application for temporary injunction at Exh.5 has been rejected by the trial Court after noticing that the suit was not filed by all members/trustees. He further states that the Appellate Court has found bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court because of Section 81H of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act and therefore, the appeal has been rejected. Learned Counsel therefore urges that case of petitioners on merits has not been looked into at all. Shri Dewani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 on the other hand points out that the construction to be effected by the respondent no.3 is already completed and photographs of said complete structure are already produced before the trial Court. He has invited attention to the prayers as made in the temporary injunction application to urge that because of completed structure that prayers have been rendered infructuous. He states that at the most the suit can be expedited. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 Municipal Corporation has also supported the arguments of Shri Dewani. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 states that he is still awaiting instructions in the matter. I have perused the plaint as also the application for grant of temporary injunction. The temporary injunction sought is only to restrain the present respondent no.3 from raising any construction on the suit site, that 3 construction is already over. Though I find that the consideration on merits in so far as case of petitioner is concerned by the trial Court and by the Appellate Court is not proper, in this situation, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 67/2007 on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola are expedited and the said court shall attempt to decide the same within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. With these directions, Writ Petition is disposed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.