1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.95 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6966 OF 2002 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 R.R.Mantri, Advocate for the appellant and Shri M.V.Deshpande, Advocate, for the Respondent. 2. This appeal from order is directed against the order passed by learned Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nanded, below Exhibit 1 in R.C.A. No. 208 of 2002 on 28.10.2002, whereby he felt that it was necessary to expedite hearing of the appeal itself and accordingly passed an order directing that the appeal shall be heard peremptorily on 18.11.2002 and 2 thereafter decided on 25.11.2002. So far as that part of the matter is concerned, both the Advocates had consented to argue the matter on 18.11.2002. 3. Advocate Shri Mantri mainly has an objection to the part of the order whereby the protection from demolition was given subject to payment of occupancy charges pending the first appeal. It is stated that since the appellant was interested in protecting his property, he had deposited occupancy charges and compensatory cost in the trial court. 4. It is also now admitted position that R.C.A. No.202 of 2002 is disposed of and second appeal No.505 of 2002 is filed by present appeal against the judgment in the said regular civil appeal and the second appeal is pending in this court. 5. In my opinion, when the second 3 appeal is pending, therein the court can very well consider the order of the trial court (Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division), Nanded passed in Special Civil Suit No.80 of 2001 decided on 19.10.2002. The order passed by the first appellate court on 28.10.2002 regarding payment of occupancy charges and compensatory costs was with regard to the directions of the trial court in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment. Therefore, that aspect can very well be considered in the second appeal. 6. In this view of the matter, the appeal from order is disposed of with observation that the parties are at liberty to raise the question regarding payment of compensatory costs and occupancy charges in the second appeal. 7. It is also stated across the Bar that already order giving interim protection is passed in the said second 4 appeal and therefore there is no need to continue similar protection in this appeal from order. 8. In view of disposal of appeal from order, Civil Application No.6966 of 2002 does not survive. Date:07/09/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ao95.02