1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6423 OF 2005 Sanjay s/o Kisanrao Mane, age: 32 years, Occ: Agri. & Business, R/o Dhoki, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad, at present residing at Near Ashwamegh Hotel, Barshi Road, Latur, Tq. & District Latur. Petitioner Versus Anand s/o Rangnathrao Kulkarni, age: 32 years, Occ: Agri. & Business, R/o Shrikrishna Nagar, Osmanabad, Tq. and District Osmanabad. Respondent Mr.K.B.Autade, advocate holding for Mr.H.D.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Tikle, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Petitioner herein is original defendant in the suit presented by Respondent before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, being Regular Civil Suit No.71/05 claiming decree of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. Petitioner herein has also presented a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.88/2005 before the same Court claiming identical relief. 2 In the suit presented by Respondent herein, an application 2 Exhibit-5 came to be filed seeking order of temporary injunction against the petitioner herein – defendant in the said suit. Application presented by the Respondent came to be allowed, whereas, challenge raised by petitioner herein to the order below Exhibit-5 by presenting Misc. Civil Appeal to the first appellate Court came to be turned down. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court raising exception to the orders passed by Courts below. The application presented by petitioner herein in the suit presented by him, being Regular Civil Suit No.88/2005 was not pressed by him in view of the order passed in companion suit. 3 At the stage of admission of this petition, this Court, while granting `Rule’ on 08.09.2005, also granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) & (D) thereby order passed by the Courts below in respect of grant of temporary injunction has been kept in abeyance. 4 Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that proceedings of suit are kept pending because of pendency of writ petition in this Court. 5 In these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to decide the pending suits expeditiously. Considering the fact that interim order granted by this Court is operative from 08.09.2005, it would be desirable to continue the interim order till final disposal of the suits by the trial Court. Petition can be disposed of by making Rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D) and by issuing further direction to the trial Court to decide pending suits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. 3 6 In the result, Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of interim order passed by this Court on 08.09.2005. The trial Court is directed to decide pending suits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. It is made clear that trial Court shall not get influenced by the interlocutory orders passed on the applications and the trial Court shall proceed to decide the controversy between parties on its own merits and in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. 7 In view of disposal of petition, pending Civil Application, if any, does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp642305