1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Appeal against Order No. 24/2009 (Shobhatai Babarao Khadse & another VERSUS Manoj Pandurang Chouhan) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Nitin A. Vyawahare, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sahil Bhangde, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 17, 2009. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Wardha on 13.11.2006 allowing an application filed by the respondent for grant of temporary injunction and restraining the present appellants from disturbing the possession of the respondent over the suit property till the decision of the suit. It appears that the appellant/original defendants had challenged the order dated 13.11.2006 before the District Judge, Wardha. The District Judge, Wardha, however, found that the appeal was not maintainable before the learned 2 District Judge and the appeal memo was returned to the appellants for presentation of the same before the High Court. Thus, after the order was passed by the Principal District Judge, Wardha on 24.06.2008 returning the appeal for presentation before this Court, the appeal has been preferred in this Court on 11.02.2009. It is brought to the notice of this Court that after the impugned order was passed on 13.11.2006, the parties tendered their evidence on affidavit in the year 2007. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the Special Civil Suit No.33/2006 is at the fag end of the trial and in such circumstances even if a couple of pieces of evidence/documents are not considered by the trial Court while passing the order dated 13.11.2006, it would not be just and proper to remand the matter to the trial Court for a fresh decision on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on merits. 3 Hence, it would not be a fit case for remand of the matter to the trial Court as suggested by the counsel for the appellants and it would rather be necessary in the interest of justice to direct the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. In these circumstances, the appeal against order is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and without getting influenced by the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated 13.11.2006 as those were made at the stage of deciding an interlocutory application. The appeal against order is, therefore, disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE