1 WP No. 5233.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5233 OF 2011 Meena Navnath Avhad ..PETITIONER VERSUS Vivek Hanuant Lavhat & Ors ..RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE:- 18th July, 2011. PER COURT: The Petitioner has filed a suit bearing R.C.S. No. 213 of 2010 for perpetual injunction. The petitioner also moved an application for temporary injunction. After hearing the parties the Trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction. The defendant had also filed counter claim along with application for temporary injunction which came to be rejected by 2 WP No. 5233.11 the Trial Court. The present respondent filed an appeal on 13-12-2010 before the District Judge, Ahmednagar bearing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2011. The respondents also filed application seeking stay to the order passed by the Trial Court on 20-04-2011. The Appellate Court granted stay to the order passed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 7-12-2010. The same order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 2. Shri Jadhavar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court on 20-04-2011 had adjourned the hearing to 14-07-2011, and as hearing was adjourned to 14-07-2011, the petitioner or their counsel did not remain present on the next date. The Lower Appellate Court in absence of the petitioner counsel without giving any reasons has passed the orders staying the order of the Trial Court granting injunction in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that even the Roznama would show that initially on 20-04-2011 the next date was given as 14-07-2011 and the same was written and changed, and behind back of the 3 WP No. 5233.11 petitioner the impugned order has been passed. According to the learned counsel, on merits also the respondents are not entitled for the relief, but appellate court without considering the merits of the matter straight way passed the impugned order staying to the order of the Trial Court granting injunction in favour of the petitioner. learned counsel submits that such a practice needs to be deprecated. 3. On perusal of the Roznama filed, it appears that there is over writing on the next date given on 20-04-2011, and the order granting stay to the order of the Trial Court, also does not state or discuss the merit of the matter. 4. However, I find that the learned District Judge-3, Ahmednagar who has passed the impugned order, expedited the hearing of the appeal. 5. In view of the fact that next date for hearing of the appeal has been given as 22-07-2011, I do not intend to interfere with the 4 WP No. 5233.11 impugned order in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. However, the District Judge before whom the appeal i.e. M.C.A. No. 3 of 2011 is pending, shall decide the appeal within a period of one month from today. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] SDM*July11