1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVN.APPLICATION NO.445 OF 1991 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.63 OF 1992 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders 1. Heard Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate, for applicant in revision application No.445/1991 and for Respondent No.1 in revision application no.63 of 1992 and Shri V.J.Dixit Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1 in revision application No.445 of 1991 and for applicant in revision application No. 63 of 1992. 2. These revision applications basically arise out of the different orders passed in Regular Civil Suit No.494 of 1990 pending on the file of learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior 2 Division, Jalgaon. 3. Civil Revision Application No.63 of 1992 is filed by original plaintiff being aggrieved by order dated 21.8.1981 passed by learned District Judge, Jalgaon, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.54 of 1991, whereby the order of temporary injunction passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon, on 30.3.1991 below Exhibit 6 in Regular Civil Suit No.494 of 1990 was set aside. Since the suit itself is pending since 1990 and it is regarding shop premises, it is necessary that the suit is decided at the earliest. In the meanwhile parties can be directed to maintain status-quo. 4. Civil Revision Application No. 445 of 1991 is filed by original defendant, being aggrieved by the orders dated 30.3.1991 passed by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, 3 Jalgaon on applications below Exhibits 23 and 24 directing defendant No. 1 to put back the plaintiff in possession of suit shop with further directions to defendant No.1 not to disturb plaintiff's possession till decision of the suit, and also that defendant no.1 being guilty of intentionally flouting the order of ad-interim injunction passed by the court, his property worth Rs. 5,000/= be attached pending the suit. 5. As held in Rampyaribai v. Niladevi 2007 (4) Mh.L.J.213, the proceedings for breach of injunction are independent proceedings and therefore must be registered as Misc. Civil Application requiring judicial enquiry and be tried by framing appropriate issues. It is also made clear that the proceedings for breach of injunction are absolutely to do nothing with the decision of the suit on merits. Moreover, direction to direct defendant No.1 to put the 4 plaintiff in possession of shop premises can not be direction that should have been given on mere affidavits and documents. So order passed below application Exhibits 23 and 24 needs to be set aside and modified. 6. In view of above, both these civil revision applications can be disposed of with certain directions in the interest of justice. 7. The 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon, is directed to proceed with hearing of R.C.S. No. 494 of 1990 and decide the suit itself within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ from this court, by giving precedence to the suit of 1990. The learned trial judge shall also decide in the suit issue whether plaintiff was dispossessed pending the suit and defendant No.1 should be directed to put back the plaintiff in possession 5 of the suit shop. If necessary, the parties are given liberty to amend pleadings, add such prayer and lead evidence on said issue. Till decision of the suit all the parties to the suit shall maintain status- quo. Learned Civil Judge shall register the application regarding violation of ad-interim injunction as independent proceedings and decide the same independently as per the directions given in the case of Rampyaribai (supra). Parties agree to appear before the trial court on 15.9.2009. Registry to send the record and proceedings to the trial court forthwith. Date:20/08/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/cra445.91