Bombay High Court
Ramdas S/O Ramrao Parika vs Divsnl Controller, Mah. State ... on 16 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp3159.10.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3159 OF 2010
Ramdas S/o. Ramrao Parika,
Aged about 62 years, Occ.:
Business, R/o. Rukhamini Nagar,
Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.
.... PETITIONER.
ig // VERSUS //
Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Transport
Corporation, Kaulkhed Road,
Akola Division, Akola,
Tq. and Distt. Akola.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
None for the Petitioner.
None for the respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JUNE 16, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. None appeared for the petitioner on 9th June, 2016. Today
also none appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called out. Shri
V.G. Wankhede, advocate appeared for the respondent on 9th June, 2016.
However, none appeared for the respondent when the matter is called out
today.
Judgment 2 wp3159.10.odt
2. The petitioner filed civil suit praying for decree for permanent
injunction restraining the respondent from taking action pursuant to the
notice dated 14th December, 2009 and further restraining the defendant
from awarding contract as per the tender notice published in Deshonnati,
dated 31st December, 2009. The petitioner/ plaintiff had filed application
under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure praying for temporary injunction.
The respondent/ defendant opposed the prayer of the petitioner
for grant of temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge by order dated
19th January, 2010 granted temporary injunction restraining the respondent/
defendant from taking action as per notice dated 14th December, 2009 and
also restrained the respondent/ defendant from taking action as per tender
notice published in daily Deshonnati dated 31st December, 2009. The
respondent challenged the above order before the District Court in appeal
which is allowed. The learned District Judge set aside the order passed by
the trial Court and rejected the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff
praying for temporary injunction. The petitioner being aggrieved by the
order passed by the District Court has filed this petition.
3. This Court by order dated 14th July, 2010 directed the parties
to maintain status-quo in relation to possession over the suit property. By the
order dated 12th August, 2010 rule is issued and interim order is continued.
Judgment 3 wp3159.10.odt
As the petitioner and the respondent are not represented, it is not known
whether the civil suit is disposed or not. If the civil suit is disposed nothing
survives in this petition and it has to be treated as infructuous. If the civil
suit is not disposed, it is directed that the interim order passed by this Court
on 14th July, 2010 shall continue till the decision of the civil suit.
The trial Court is directed to dispose the Civil Suit No. 9 of
2010 filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff against the respondent/ defendant till
30th November, 2016.
The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
