1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5189 OF 2011 SINDHU SAMBHA PADGELWAR AND OTHERS ..VERSUS.. SUMAN SHANKAR PADGELWAR AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. S. W. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 19 th OCTO BER , 2011 . Heard Mrs. S. W. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rohit Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents. It appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court that the construction of the building was almost complete at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 17th September, 2011 and the construction is completed after the passing of the impugned order dated 17th September, 2011. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the respondents states that nothing remains to be constructed now as the construction is completed. In this background, the cause of filing the writ petition is rendered infructuous as the construction is already completed and the learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents will not carry out any further construction over the suit property. Mrs. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondents should not alienate the suit property or create any third party interest therein during 2 the pendency of the suit as it is clear from the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court that there is a serious dispute between the parties in regard to the ownership of the suit property. Though, that appears to be so, from the judgments passed by the Courts, since, the petitioners have not made this prayer in the temporary injunction application, the relief cannot be granted in this writ petition. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate application in this regard before the Trial Court. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale