SM 1 3.ao.4.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 4 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1228 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 4 OF 2011 Marathe Textile Mills ....Appellant Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, District-Sangli ....Respondent ____________ Mr. Amit Sale for the Appellant. Mr. Prashant Chavan with Suhas Patil i/b M/s. Navdeep Vora & Associates for the Respondent. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2011. P.C.: By this appeal, the appellant is raising exception to the order at Exhibit-7 in Regular Civil Suit No. 125 of 2009, whereby the application tendered by the appellant came to be rejected by the First Appellate Court. The application tendered by the appellant seeking a restraint order against the respondent thereby restraining it from allotting the plot area taken in possession by the respondent in favour of the third party during the pendency of the appeal has been turned down by the First Appellate Court. It is not disputed that the appellant was alloted an industrial plot for starting a textile industry. The plot area alloted in favour of SM 2 3.ao.4.11 appellant was not utilised during the prescribed period. As such the MIDC has issued notice prior to taking over the possession of the said area and after following due procedure, the same is taken over by the MIDC. Being aggrieved by the action of the MIDC, the appellant approached the Civil Court by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 473 of 1999 claiming an order and decree of perpetual injunction and declaration against the MIDC. The suit presented by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the Trial Court against which, an appeal has been preferred which is stated to be pending. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant seeks restraint order against the MIDC restraining the Corporation from allotting the plot area taken in possession by the Corporation in favour of third party and the said application presented by the appellant/original applicant has been turned down by the First Appellate Court. 2. I perused the application as well as the order passed by the First Appellate Court. It is stated by the Counsel appearing for the MIDC that the plot area taken in possession has been divided into smaller areas and those sub-plots have been alloted in favour of different industrial units. In view of the statement made in the Affidavit-in-Reply presented by the MIDC, there is no reason to pass any interim orders during the pendency of the appeal before SM 3 3.ao.4.11 the First Appellate Court. 3. In the facts and circumstances, the ends of justice would be met by directing the First Appellate Court to dispose of the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible. The First Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the Regular Civil Appeal No. 125 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. The Appeal From Order stands dismissed. All pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (R. M. BORDE, J.)