1 1279.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1279 OF 2011 Yeshwant Sukhdeo Gaikwad and others. ... Appellants. V/s. M/s.Pooja Enterprises and others. ... Respondents. P.S.Dani i/b. H.R.Pawar for the appellants. Sandeep Shinde with Prashant Jadhav for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 2nd December 2011. P.C. : Heard. Admit. By consent of parties appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the order passed by the leaned Judge of the City Civil Court dated 6th September 2011. The learned Judge has disposed of Notice of Motion No.2871/2010 in L.C.Suit No.1306/2010 and Notice of Motion No.2089/2010 in L.C.Suit No.1649/2010 by a common order. On perusal of the order, the learned Judge appears to have given cogent reasons for allowing Notice of Motion No.2871/2010 in L.C.Suit No.1306/2010. However, he has not considered the case of the appellant in Notice of Motion No.2089/2010 in L.C.Suit No. 1649/2010. It was expected on the part of learned Judge to consider 2 1279.11-ao the contention raised by the appellant in the said matter and decide the same. Without recording any reason in support of the case, a final conclusion is drawn by the Judge and, accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the Notice of Motion No.2089/2010 taken out by the appellant. The order passed by the learned trial Court appears to be without application of mind to the record of the case inasmuch as there are absolutely no reason recorded for the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge. The order passed in respect of Notice of Motion No. 2089/2010 in L.C.Suit No.1649/2010, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remitted back to the trial Court only for consideration of Notice of Motion No.2089/2010 in L.C.Suit No.1649/2010 afresh and it is, accordingly, ordered. 3. The learned trial Judge shall consider Notice of Motion No. 2089/2010 in L.C.Suit No.1649/2010 afresh and, after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties, shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order, by passing a reasoned order. 4. It is informed that the ad-interim order passed by the trial Court during the pendency of the notice of motion has been continued by an order dated 19th November 2011 even after disposal of the notice of motion. The said interim order, therefore, shall continue for further until disposal of notice of motion. 5. With the aforesaid directions, appeal from order stands disposed of. In view of disposal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survives and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)