FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.140 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15272 OF 2010. ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This appeal from order takes exception to the order dated 11th October, 2010 passed by the District Judge-1, Kopargaon below Exh.7 in R.C.A. No.16/2010. 2 The learned Counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that there is no description of the suit property either in the suit or the appeal and without considering that point, the Court below has granted injunction against the present appellant. The learned Counsel further submits that ends of justice will meet if status quo is granted and hearing of the Regular Civil Appeal No.16/2010 is expedited. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since there is no description of the property in the suit and in absence of description, no injunction could have been clamped against the appellant. He also invited my attention to the grounds taken in the appeal memo and civil application and submitted that this appeal from order and civil application deserve to be allowed. 3 On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the reasons recorded by the appellate Court and submitted that since the interim order was running in favour of respondent even during the pendency of the suit, the same has been continued by the appellate Court. He further submitted that during pendency of the suit, the parties were heard on merits and then only, interim order was granted. 4 After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, in my opinion, since the interim order was operating during pendency of the suit and appeal being continuation of the suit, the appellate Court has rightly continued the interim order. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in the case of Maneklal Jainarayanji Sabu vs. Ruprao Ganpatrao Bhonde, reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 450. 5 In this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the appeal from order and the civil application and the same are dismissed. The lower appellate Court is however, directed to hear and dispose of the appeal, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from receipt of the order of this Court. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 29.10.2010. PLK/*