-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3716 OF 2007 PETITION NO.3716 OF 2007 PETITION NO.3716 OF 2007 Hiraman Nagu Nikam & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Vasant Maruti Nikam & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for the Petitioners None for the Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : MAY 2, 2008. : MAY 2, 2008. : MAY 2, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate appearing for the Petitioners. By this Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioners (original plaintiffs) have taken an exception to the order dismissing an Appeal preferred by them for challenging the order dated 4th September 2004 passed by the trial court by which the application for temporary injunction filed by them was rejected. 2. After having heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, I find that no case for interference is made out. The Petitioners filed a suit along with the application for temporary injunction in the year 2000. Application for temporary injunction was rejected on 4th September 2004. An appeal preferred by the Petitioners was dismissed by the District Court on 10th April 2006. From the year 2000 onwards, there is no ad-interim or interim relief operating in -2- favour of the Petitioners. Moreover, from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 10th April 2006, there is no ad-interim relief operating favour of the Petitioners. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the interlocutory order and the confirmation of the same by the Appellate Court. 3. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. Hearing of the suit is expedited. 4. All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are expressly kept open. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE