( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 69 OF 1993 Eknath Gatalu Dhobi APPELLANT VERSUS Supadu Gatalu Dhobi and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate holding for Mr. S.B. Talekar, advocate, for the appellant. Mr. L.V. Sangit, advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 2nd December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Sangit L.V., learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 6, makes a statement that in pursuance to partition decree rendered by the trial Court between the same parties and which was confirmed by the first Appellate Court, the contesting respondents have been inducted in possession by the competent revenue authority. He has placed on record copy of the communication dated 30-04-1997 issued by the T.I.L.R., ( 2 ) Chalisgaon. It is marked “X”. 3. The suit was only for injunction. Considering the subsequent developments, the appeal has become infructuous. Hence, it is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa69-93