1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.23191 OF 2011 Dnaynoba B. Gade ...Petitioner Versus Suhas B. Golande & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.P.S.Dani for the Petitioner Mr.Pratap Patil i/b. S.S.Kulkarni for the Respondent the respondent no.1 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 4th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Patil waives service in this petition as he is the only contesting party. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The petitioner herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No.82 of 2010 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wadgaon, (Hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Judge). Before the learned Trial Judge, the petitioner had filed an application for injunction as per Exhibit 5. That application was granted by the learned trial Judge by 2 Order dated 22.11.2010. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2010, the respondent no.1 filed Misc. Appeal No.372 of 2010. In the said appeal the learned Advocate for the petitioner in his capacity as respondent, sought adjournment by one month as the Advocate for the petitioner was not well. That application was opposed the learned Advocate for the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 submitted in the say that the short time of 8 days may be granted. In the alternative, status quo/ stay may be granted to the impugned order. 4. After considering the said statement, the learned Addl. District Judge before whom the Civil Appeal No.372 of 2010 was pending, adjourned the appeal to 15.12.2011. In addition to that, the learned Judge passed the following order: “ Heard. The effect and operation of the impugned order dated 22.11.2010 is stated (stayed) until further orders”. 5. A perusal of this order clearly goes to show that the learned Judge 3 has not given reasons as to why the learned Judge preferred to stay the order dated 22.11.2010 by which the injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner and that the said injunction order had the effect of protecting the interest of the petitioner. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Dani submitted that the impugned order is patently illegal because it was open for the learned Judge to adjourn the matter for a short term, disregarding the request for adjournment for longer period. Instead, the learned Judge granted the adjournment for about four weeks and without giving any reason stayed the operation of the Order dated 22.11.2010. Learned Advocate Mr. Patil, for the respondents submitted that the petitioners had secured an injunction against the respondent no.1 and in the appeal proceeding they were adopting the delay tactics, and that was noted by the learned Appellate Court and that is how the order was passed so as to stay the operation of the order dated 22.11.2010. 7. I have considered the manner in which the impugned order is passed. The learned Judge seems to have granted the request of the petitioner to adjourn the matter for a period of more than one month. This 4 would mean that the learned Judge was satisfied about the cause for the adjournment and he had adjourned the matter to 15.12.2011. However, while adjourning the matter the learned Judge passed the aforesaid impugned order thereby staying the effect of order dated 22.11.2010. In the first place, learned Judge could not have done this without hearing the Advocate for the petitioner. The order is cryptic and does not give any reasons as to why the order dated 22.11.2010 is required to be stayed. The effect of this order is that the order of injunction which was secured is now stayed causing prejudice to the petitioner. In my view, the impugned order is required to be set aside. 8. Learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 submitted that the appeal is fixed on 15.12.2011. He submitted that the order of injunction is running against the respondent no.1 and hence the appeal should be heard at an early date. I am now inclined to direct the learned Judge to hear and dispose of the appeal before a particular date. It appears that the learned Appellate Court is busy and that is why he has adjourned the matter to longer date when the application was made in the month of August. In these circumstances, it will be open for the 5 respondent no.1 to make application for preponing the date. The learned District Judge shall consider the said application on merits. 9. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the following order is passed: ORDER i) Order below Exhibit 10 of the Civil Appeal No.372 of 2010 dated 19.8.2011, the text of which is as under. “ Heard. The effect and operation of the impugned order dated 22.11.2010 is stated (stayed) until further Orders.” is set aside. The injunction order dated 22.11.2010 shall continue to run against the respondent no.1. ii) If the respondent no.1 wants early hearing i.e. prior to 22.11.2011, the respondent no.1 is free to make an application to the learned District Judge for preponing date of hearing. The said application will be heard and disposed of by the learned District Judge on merits. Iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)