1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.640 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2009 M/s.Pramukh Development Corporation ..Appellant V/s Laxmi Industrial Estate & ors ..Respondents Ms.Sindha Shreedharan, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Anil C. Singh i/b.Mr.Bharat Zaveri, Advocate, for the respondent No.1 Smt.K.K.Soraan, Advocate, for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . By way of the above Civil Application, the applicant prays for the following reliefs. (a) This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass necessary order by quashing and setting aside the beautification permission granted of the said culvert done by respondent No.1 highhandedly pending this appeal without obtaining completion certificate. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE 2 This Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue necessary directions to the Hon'ble Trial Court to quash any permission granted by respondentNo.2 to respondent No.1 to the culvert highhandedly done by respondent No.1 which is contrary to the order dated 13th September, 2004, passed by this Court. (b) Hon'ble High Court be pleased to expedite the final hearing of the suit as expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of disposal of this Civil Application. (c) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) as stated hereinabove. (d) Any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. (e) Cost of Civil Application be provided for. 2. At the hearing of the above Civil Application the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that she has no objection to the above Appeal itself being heard and disposed of by issuing a direction to the City Civil Court to dispose of Long Cause Suit No.2969 of 2004 within a particular time frame. 3. The above appeal has been filed challenging the order refusing ad-interim relief to the appellant. It appears that thereafter the Notice of Motion filed by the appellant itself was disposed of finally 3 against which the appellant had filed Appeal from Order No.566 of 2006 which Appeal came to be disposed of by this Court by Order dated 16th February, 2008. This Court disposed of the said Appeal from Order by issuing, directions which are contained in paragraph 4 of the said order which directions are to operate pending the suit. In view of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for the disposal of the above Appeal. 4. In my view, therefore, without going into the rival contentions in respect of the prayers sought in the Civil Application the interest of justice would be served, if the hearing of the said Long Cause Suit No.2969 of 2004 is expedited and is directed to be disposed of by 31st October, 2009. The learned counsel for the parties state that suits of the year 2003 and 2004 are being heard by the City Civil Court. The applicant would be at liberty to file an application in the Trial Court in terms of the order of this Court dated 16th February, 2008. The above Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 4 5. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of as such. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)