1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 93 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7519 OF 2010 Gram Vikas Sanstha Murud and another ...Appellants Versus Vasant Ramchandra Kshirsagar ...Respondent ..... Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, advocate for the appellant Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Exh. 75 referred by the court below in the impugned order is misinterpreted and the facts of the case are not properly appreciated. It is further submitted that the property which is subject matter of application is being used as a play ground by the students from last 40 years. It is further submitted that during pendency of the suit, status quo was maintained by the parties and this is not in dispute. Learned counsel invited my attention to the sale deed of the respondents at page 45 to 2 50 of the compilation to contend that even in the said sale deed it is mentioned that the open space belongs to Janta Vidya Mandir, a school run by Rural Education society is at North side of the suit property. Learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on the reported judgment of this court in the case of Maneklal Jainarayanji Sabu Vs. Ruprao Ganpatrao Bhonde, reported in 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 455 to contend that the appeal is continuation of the suit and if the interim relief was operating during pendency of the suit the same is required to be continued during pendency of the appeal. 3 On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent, invited my attention to the affidavit in reply and more particularly para 6 of the said reply and contended that already certain construction has been raised by the respondent. A watchman is also residing at the said site. Some construction material is also lying on the suit site. If the interim order is granted by this Court, it would cause great hardship to the respondent. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the averments made in the affidavit in reply and contended that the Appeal is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that during pendency of the suit status quo order was in operation. This Court in the case of Maneklal (supra) in para 2 and 3 held thus:- 3 “2. In my view, this is not the correct approach adopted by the lower Appellate Court while refusing interim relief, especially when the appeal is admitted and pending before it. Merely because the trial Court has negatived the plea of the appellant, would not disentitle the appellant for grant of interim relief, unless other special reasons are recorded in that behalf. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 3. It is rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the interim arrangement had continued between the parties for over last ten years pursuant to the agreement reached between them, which is reflected in order dated 2th April, 1993, in view of the undertaking dated 25.10.1989. In the circumstances, the said interim arrangement shall continue till the appeal is finally disposed of by the Additonal District Judge, or till such time the Lower Court Appellate Court finds that the appellant has become disentitle for such relief, for the reasons to be recorded in that behalf.” 5 After all, the appeal is continuation of the suit and it is undisputed position that the status quo order was in operation during pendency of the suit, therefore, I am of the opinion that during pendency of substantial appeal, the same should operate. In the appeal while issuing notice this court has granted interim relief in favour of the appellant. In this view of the matter, I fill it appropriate to 4 admit this appeal and continue the interim order passed by this court earlier. 6 Hence, Admit. 7 Interim order to continue till disposal of the appeal. 8 At this stage, counsel appearing for both sides pray that in the light of the above, the appeal itself be disposed of. Prayer is reasonable. In the circumstances, Appeal is disposed of. 9 It is made clear that during pendency of Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2010, parties are directed to maintain status quo. Needless to mention that the lower appellate court will dispose of the Regular Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2010 as early as possible. 10 In the above circumstances, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the civil application and the same is disposed of accordingly. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/