1 WP-7993.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7993 OF 2011 Bhimrao Bira Patole and anr. : Petitioners versus Roopsen Pandurang Pawar & ors. : Respondents. Mr.Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioners. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 14th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order date 4/7/2011 passed by the District Judge-3 Sangli by which order the application for stay Exhibit-7 pending the Appeal filed by the Petitioners being Regular Civil Appeal No.225/11 came to be rejected. The Petitioners are the original Defendants in Regular civil Suit No.95/92 which has been decreed by the judgment and order dated 2/5/2011 and the Petitioners have been perpetually restraining from causing any sort of obstruction and interference in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs over the Suit land Gat No.758 admeasuring 42R situated at village Kanthi, Tal. Jath. 2 Against the said decree, the Petitioners have filed Regular Civil Appeal No.225/11 in which Application Exhibit-7 for stay of the said decree came to be filed. The said Application Exhibit-7 has been rejected by the impugned order. 2 WP-7993.11.sxw 3 The sum and substance of the reasoning of the First Appellate Court is that temporary injunction is operating against the Defendants from the date of the order which was passed by the trial Court. The said order continued pending the suit as the appeal filed by the Petitioners against the said order of temporary injunction was dismissed. The First Appellate Court, in view of the final decree passed by the trial Court, did not therefore, deem it fit to stay the decree. 4 In my view, the reasoning given by the First Appellate Court in rejecting the application by the impugned order cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, hearing of the Regular Civil Appeal No.225 of 2011 is expedited. [R.M.SAVANT, J]