1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6637 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 92 OF 2007 M/s Babrilaon Metal Treat, M-122, Waluj MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad ...Applicant (orig. respondent) VERSUS The Dy.Ex.Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.L., (Urban Sub-Division), Waluj, Aurangabad. ...Respondent (orig. appellant) ..... Shri S.L.Jondhale, advocate for the applicant Shri Vivek Kulkarni h/f Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate for the respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. Dated : 17 th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. The applicant has preferred the present application requesting to take up Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007 for early 2 hearing. The applicant submits that the respondent herein has filed Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007 challenging the order dated 7.8.2007 passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 298 of 2007 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. It is the contention of the applicant that the factory of the applicant (original respondent) is closed due to disconnection of electricity supply since 24.7.2007. It is further the contention of the applicant that the respondent herein has filed Civil Application No. 6554 of 2007 in Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007 and sought the interim relief and while passing the order in the said application on 31.9.2007, hearing of Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007 was expedited. However, in spite of the said directions, the said Appeal from Order has not come up for hearing and the workers of the factory of the applicant are facing starvation due to closure of the factory and hence, the applicant has preferred present application for the prayers as set out therein. 2. Shri Vivek Kulkarni, advocate holding for Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate for the respondent has opposed the present application and submitted that the present application bears no substance and is devoid of any merit and therefore, the same be rejected. 3. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 3 4. At the out set, Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007 was admitted on21.8.2007 and ad-interim relief came to be granted in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ of Civil Application No. 6554 of 2007 preferred therein. The applicant i.e. Respondent in the said appeal has been charged with the theft of electricity and is being prosecuted for the same. It appears that the appellant issued bill for Rs. 8,02,710/- towards difference payable on account of theft. The Trial Court by impugned order passed on 7.8.2007 issued mandatory directions to restore electricity supply of the applicant factory after depositing amount of Rs.50,000/- forthwith, which has been challenged in Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007. 5. It is seen from the proceeding that the appellant was willing to reconnect the electricity supply of the applicant herein provided the applicant pays 50 per cent amount i.e. Amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. However, the applicant herein apparently was not willing to deposit the said amount, since vide order dated 21.9.2007 ad-interim relief was granted and Rule was made absolute accordingly and while passing the said order, hearing of appeal was expedited. 6. However, the present appeal is of the year 2007 and earlier Appeals from Orders are pending and some of which also 4 have been expedited. However, considering the position that hearing of Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007 was expedited, liberty can be granted to the applicant to prefer Civil Application requesting early final hearing of Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007 after the period of six months and present application can be disposed of. 7. In the result, liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer Civil Application for early final hearing of Appeal from Order No. 92 of 2007 after the period of six months and present Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca6637.09