1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 343/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1390 OF 2011 (Suresh s/o Adkannaji Raikanthiwar & Anr. vs. Mahesh Nagesh Goje & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. AUGUST 11, 2011. Heard Shri Dawda, learned counsel for the appellants. The trial Court as also the first appellate court have at interlocutory stage while considering application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code have found that the number of connections as noticed by the Tahsildar were about 500 and the plaintiff was paying entertainment tax. In this situation, provisionally the plaintiff has been directed to pay Rs.40/- per connection to defendants who are appellants before this Court. The only contention in the present appeal is, Respondent No. 3 – Trial Court and Respondent No. 2 – Appellate Court have failed to note that the defendants were required to pay Rs.44/- per month per connection to service provider and hence by accepting Rs.40/- per month they were actually put to suffer loss of Rs.4/- per month per connection. The learned counsel has urged 2 that the obligation to pay Rs.65/- by plaintiff to defendants is not in dispute and hence that rate ought to have been awarded by interim orders. The rate has been worked out by Courts after considering the relevant factor. The learned Single Judge of this Court has upheld it. We, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. However, looking to the nature of controversy, we expedite trial of Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 2010 and direct the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mul, to decide it by 31st March 2012. With these directions, present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.