1 Appeal from Order No.95/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.95 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7761/2010 Uttam s/o Chimaji Gaikwad ... APPELLANT VERSUS Bhagwan s/o Chimaji Gaikwad & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant Shri S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 27th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This appeal takes exception to the order dated 29.3.2010, passed by 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No.228/2008. 2. The application was filed by the appellant herein for restraining the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 from obstructing into the plaintiff’s possession from southern portion of 100 sq.mtrs. of the Plot No.1, situated at Survey No.12/33/17/A. However, after hearing the parties and after appreciating the evidence, the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar has rejected the said application. Hence this Appeal from Order is filed. 2 Appeal from Order No.95/2010 3. The counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the 100 sq. mtrs. plot has been sold by the real brother, contrary to the consent terms. According to him, when such suit is filed and suit is pending, it was expected that during the pendency of the said suit, the original defendant No.2 shall not carry out any construction on the suit premises. However, admittedly the construction is being done on the suit plot. Therefore, according to the counsel for the appellant, the interim orders are required to be passed restraining the original defendant No.2 from further construction. 4. The learned counsel appearing for original defendant No.2 submits that, the trial Court has already observed that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are party to the proceedings pending before the said Court and ultimately, if the plaintiff succeeds, in that case, consequences would follow. Therefore, this Court may not interfere. 5. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The Court below in para 12 of the judgment has observed thus : 3 Appeal from Order No.95/2010 “If during lis-pendence defendant No.2 constructs a house on suit property and if evidence as aforesaid comes on record, then the defendant No.2 will be bound by the final order that may be passed in the present suit. He may be directed to dismantle the house constructed by him.” 6. Since the trial Court itself has observed to the above effect about the construction by defendant No.2 on the suit property, in my opinion, it is not necessary to pass any further orders. It is needless to clarify that the defendant No.2 will be bound by final orders passed in the suit pending before the court below. 7. The counsel for the appellant in the alternative prays that, this Court may direct the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar to expedite the hearing of the suit. Since the suit is pending from 2008, it will be in the interest of both the parties that Special Civil Suit No.228/2008 is decided as early as possible. In the aforestated background, the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar to see that Special Civil Suit No.228/2008 is heard expeditiously. The appeal from order is rejected. Consequently, Civil Application also stands rejected. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/ao95.10