1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3215 OF 2011 Prafulla Anant Pandurkar & Ors ...Petitioners Versus Smt. Sushila Aparadh & Ors. & Others ...Respondents Mr.A.A.Kocharekar the Petitioners CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 15th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Regular Civil Suit No.952 of 1999 filed by the petitioners was partly decreed on 29th January, 2007. One set of appeal came to be filed by the petitioners whereas another set of appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No.108 of 2007 came to be filed by the respondent tenants. In the said Regular Civil Appeal No.108 of 2007 the petitioners had filed application at Exhibit 17 and on that application, initially the respondents were directed to pay monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. 2 Thereafter, Exhibit 30 came to be filed by the tenants respondent. The learned District Judge-3, Kolhapur, District Kolhapur by speaking Order dated 27th November, 2009, after perusing the valuation report submitted by both the parties and after appreciating the area where the premises are situated came to the conclusion, that sum of Rs.1500/- per month would be just and proper amount by way of compensation to be paid during the pendency of the appeal. This Order dated 27th November, 2011 is challenged. I have perused the order dated 27th November, 2009. Reading of the said order clearly indicated that the parties, including the petitioners conceded that the Court can pass a particular order and that would be agreeable to them. In these circumstances, the compensation of Rs.1500/- was fixed. In my view, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere in the order dated 27th November, 2009. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that this Order dated 27th November, 2009 has not been complied with by the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners be given opportunity to file appropriate application for appropriate reliefs. No such specific liberty is required to be granted. It will be 3 open for the petitioners to attend to the alleged default on the part of the respondents. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners also submitted that since Civil Appeal is of the year 2007, the hearing of this appeal as well as Civil Appeal No.168 of 2007 be expedited. 4. I have already indicated that I do not wish to interfere in the order dated 27th November, 2009. Hence petition will have to be dismissed. At the same time, I see no difficulty in directing the learned District Judge-3, Kolhapur, before whom the aforesaid two appeals are pending to hear and dispose of the same on or before 31st March, 2012. Hence I pass the following order: ORDER i) Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. It will be open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding if the respondents have failed to comply with the order dated 27th November, 2009. This court has not expressed any view on the merits of the alleged developments. 4 ii) Learned District Judge-3, Kolhapur, shall hear and dispose of the Regular Civil Appeal No.108 of 2007 and 168 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st March, 2012. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)