1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8059 OF 2009 Essen Products India Ltd . .. Petitioner versus Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal Corporation .. Respondent Mr.V.S.Gokhale for the petitioner. Mr.K.V.Saste for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27th April 2010. P.C.: . The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner filed a suit for challenging notice dated 22nd November 2006 issued by the respondent- Corporation by which bonded warehouse (trading) licence issued to the petitioner was suspended. There is also a challenge to further order dated 30th March 2007 by which the respondent-Corporation refused to renew trading permit. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 12th March 2009. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decree was admitted. In the appeal, an application for grant of temporary injunction in mandatory form was made. The prayer was for issuing order of temporary injunction enjoining the respondent to continue the trading licence granted to the petitioner with all attending benefits, privileges etc. By order dated 20th June 2009, the said application was rejected. The petitioner applied for review of the said order. By the order impugned, the petition for review has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the 2 pendency of the suit there was an interim relief operating in favour of the petitioner. He pointed out that the interim relief directed the respondents to continue the trading licence of the petitioner till the disposal of the suit. He submitted that the said order ought to have been continued till the final disposal of the appeal. 3. I have considered the submissions. In the suit the order under challenge is by which initially a trading licence granted to the petitioner was suspended. The challenge is also to the order by which the respondent declined to renew the licence. The suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on merits on 12th March 2009. The Appellate Court declined to grant relief of temporary injunction which is discretionary in nature. Though appeal was provided against the said order of the Appellate Court, the petitioner did not prefer an appeal and applied for review. The review petition has been rejected which is the order under the challenge in the writ petition. 4. From the date of dismissal of the suit, there is no interim relief operating in favour of the petitioner. Considering the drastic nature of interim relief sought by the petitioner, the Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the said prayer especially when the suit was dismissed on merits. No case for interference is made out in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the petitioner in the pending appeal are kept open. Hearing of the appeal is expedited. The Appellate Court shall endeavour to decide the appeal within a period of six months from today. (A.S.OKA,J)