JUDGMENT M. S. Sonak, J. - Mr. Talaulikar, learned Counsel for the appellants points out that the Civil Suit No.28/2008, in which the impugned order dated 07.11.2015 was made, has since been dismissed for non- prosecution. He points out that the original plaintiffs, i.e. some of the respondents herein, have taken out an application for restoration. However, he points out that in view of the dismissal of the application, this appeal is rendered infructuous. He, therefore, prays leave to revive this appeal from order in case the suit is restored. 2. Mr. Talaulikar is quite right in his submission that technically this appeal from order is rendered infructuous. However, the records indicate that if the suit is ultimately restored, the same, has reached, at an advanced stage. In such a situation, the status quo which was still prevailing on account of the impugned order may as well continue. However, the learned trial court, whilst deciding the suit on its merit should not be influenced by any of the observations in the said order or the observations now made. 3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears the trial court, whilst protecting the appellants, as far as the governance of the temple is concerned, has also granted some limited protection to the Pujaris and Purohits from carrying out the function of distribution of Tirth Prasad and collecting the offerings in the tat (plate) and from taking the kaul prasad from the deity. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. If at all, the appellants deem it appropriate to apply for restoration of this appeal, consequent upon the restoration of the suit, such application will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, particularly, now that there was no interim relief on the impugned order in this appeal right from the year 2015. 5. This appeal is accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.