- (1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24th November, 2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Beed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 36/2006, vide which the appeal filed by the respondents against the order granting temporary injunction is allowed.
(2.) The petitioner plaintif has filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents. Alongwith the suit, an application for temporary injunctino udner Order XXIX Rule 1 and 2 was also filed. The same was alowed on 18th March, 2006. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal bearing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 36/2006. which came to be allowed on 24th November, 2006. The said order is impugned in the present petition. This Court, issued notice on 19th April, 2007. While issuing notice, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D) wa also granted, which reads thus :- "Heard. This matter was on the yesterday's (dt. 18.4.2007) cause list. Shri Sugdare, Advocate for petitioner states that yesterday so also today, he made efforts to serve copy of the petition upon Advocate shri S.T./ Tambe, appearing for the caveators, but he could not trace him and serve copy. Notice, returnable on 18.7.2007. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (D). While issuing Rule on 16th February, 2008, this conrt further continued the ad-interim relief which was granted earlier.
(3.) It can thus be seen that the order of injunction has been operating in favour of the petitioner right from 19th April, 2006. The order allowing the appeal filed by respondents has been stayed by this court. This order of injunction has been operating in favour of the petitioner since last more than 3 years. In that view of the matter, I find that the interest of justice would be subserved by passing the following order :- "Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). The learned trial court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 1 year from today.";