KALU YADAV GHORPADE Vs. SONUBAI SHANKAR KEDARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the V Additional District Judge, Nashik dated 9-8-1995 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1995.

(2.) Briefly stated the respondent instituted a suit against the petitioners for injunction and possession. In the said suit the trial Court granted temporary injunction on 27-11-1987. The respondent moved the trial Court by way of application under Order 39 Rule 2-A being Misc. Civil Application No. 10 of 1990 complaining that the petitioners have disobeyed the temporary injunction granted by the Court and therefore take appropriate action against them. The said application came to be allowed by the lower Court on 26-12- 1994. The trial Court ordered that the property of petitioners being gat Nos. 97 and 98 situated at village Sarole Khurd be attached under Order 39 Rule 2-A of Civil Procedure Code for a period of six months and on completion of said period of six months if the disobedience continues then property so attached be sold in auction for awarding compensation to the respondent. This order was assailed by the petitioners before the V Additional District Judge, Nashik by way of Appeal No. 17 of 1995. By the impugned order the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Undisputedly the Appellate Court has not adverted to the rival contentions on merits.

(3.) It is however now brought to the notice of this Court that the trial Court has subsequently disposed of the main suit. The said decree was challenged before the District Court and the District Judge was pleased to reverse the decree and remand the matter for fresh trial before the trial Court. It is stated that against the said order respondent had approached this Court by way of Appeal from Order and even the same has been disposed of. It is also pointed out that subsequent to the remand order the trial Court has finally disposed of the suit by decreeing the same in favour of the respondent and against which appeal has been preferred by the petitioners which is pending before District Court. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the suit has been finally disposed of. Moreover, there'is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners have continued disobedience of the temporary injunction which was granted on 27-11-1987. The learned counsel for the respondents no doubt resisted this petition but however having regard to the fact the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 16-12-1994 was to operate initially for a period of six months and since nothing has been brought on record to indicate that disobedience has continued the latter part of the, said order cannot be said to have come into effect. In the circumstances the order that was passed by the trial Court obviously has worked out on expiry of six months from 26-12-1994. Therefore no further investigation into the matter on merits would be necessary. With these observations the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.