jpc 1 wp10320-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10320 OF 2011 Bharat Vitthal Mhatre and others ... Petitioners Versus Ramdas Vitthal Mhatre and others ... Respondents Mr. P. D. Dalvi for the petitioners Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar, for the respondents CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 16th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 16th December, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Kalyan, by which order, the Appeal filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed and the order dated 20th September, 2010 passed on Exh. 57 in Regular Civil Suit No. 111 of 2008 came to be stayed till the decision on the Application Exh. 5. The said order has been challenged inter alia on various grounds, but principally on the ground of the jurisdiction of the District Court. In my view, considering the directions as contained in the said order, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the said issue in the present petition. Sufficient it to say that the application for interim injunction has been pending since the year 2008 and in the jpc 2 wp10320-10.sxw interregnum, the parties were referred for mediation but the said mediation did not bear fruit. The petitioners, therefore, moved an application for injuncting the defendant No.1 from carrying out construction. The trial Court, purportedly in exercise of the powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure directed the parties to maintain status by its order dated 20th September, 2010 which has been stayed by the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge-2 Kalyan. 2. It appears form the record of the above petition that above petition was moved for admission before the learned Vacation Judge on 24th December, 2010 and the learned Vacation Judge issued notice and directed the parties not to create any third party interest in respect of the suit property. The learned counsel for the respondents herein Mr. Khandeparkar states that the said order has not been served upon the respondent till November, 2011. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he states that the process fees etc. were paid and it was for the office to serve the said order. Be that as it may, since the learned counsel Shri Khandeparkar further states that in the interregnum the construction has progressed substantially and out of the 6 buildings which are to be put up in the property, five buildings are already constructed and the society in question has also jpc 3 wp10320-10.sxw been registered, the only direction that can be issued is as regards the disposal of the application Exh.5. 3. Since Exh. 5 application is directed to be heard and disposed of by the impugned order, in my view, the interest of justice would be served, if the said application is directed to be disposed within a particular time frame. Hence without interfering with the impugned order, the above petition is disposed of by directing the trial Court to dispose of the Application Exh. 5 by 31st of March, 2012. Needless to state that the said Application would be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)