IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6868/2008 Smt.Netrawati Kamath & Ors. Petitioners Vs. Smt.Ranjanaben M.Shah Respondent Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b Mrs.Vidya Bandekar for the petitioners Mr.R.V.Govilkar for the respondent Coram : Anoop V.Mohta,J. Date : 16th October,2008. P.C. 1] The petitioners/ original defendants/ landlords have challenged the concurrent findings given by the Courts below with regard to the middle portion of stilt -parking place.The respondent/plaintiff based his suit and prayers as under : a] It be declared by this Hon'ble Court that the tenancy in respect of car parking space,as shown in rough sketch as Exhibit' A' ,in the property known as 'Saphalya' situate at Kasturba Cross Road, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400 067 ,lawfully continues and the Defendants have no right to terminate the same unlawfully and arbitrarily. b] Permanent order and injunction be granted :- i] restraining the defendants,their servants and agents from in any manner disturbing the plaintiff,her family members , servants and agents from parking car at the said let out premises, 2 viz.' Saphalya' situate at Kasturba Cross Road,Kandivli(W),Mumbai 400 067,or till the Defendants remove their car from the said let out car parking space in any other place in the compound. Ii] Mandatory order and injunction directing the defendants to remove car that is presently parked at the plaintiff' s let out car parking space viz.Saphalya situate at Kastruba Cross Road, Kandivli (W) , Mumbai-400 067. iii] Mandatory order and injunction directing the defendants to replace the lock of the main gate and/or to provide duplicate key of the newly put lock,so that the plaintiff,her family members ,servants and agents can freely park the car at the plaintiff' s let out car parking space viz.Saphalya situate at Kastruba Cross Road, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400 067or in the compound. [c] Interim and ad-interim orders and injunctions in terms of prayers b[i] to [iii]above ,pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit be granted. [d] Cost of the suit be provided for. [e] Such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be granted. 2] As an application for injunction /mandatory injunction was sought the Trial Court initially granted the order of status quo with specific observations to maintain the status quo existing on or before 23.7.1996 which according to the plaintiff the date when he was using the said parking place which reads as under. 3 ''Heard Advocate for the plaintiff .Perused receipts and letters of cancellation of facility. Issue show cause notice to the Defendants r/o 7.8.1996. SS allowed .Defendants are ordered to maintain status quo existing on or before 23.7.1996' ' . 3] By order dated 23.1.2007 the Trial Court has confirmed injunction .The operative part of the order reads as under. '' Notice is made absolute. The status quo order granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant on 30.7.1996 in respect of the middle portion of the stilts parking space is hereby continued till hearing and final disposal of the suit '' 4] The petitioner/original plaintiff/landlord, therefore, preferred the appeal on 8-3-2007. During this period the plaintiff was not parking his car. 5] By the impugned order dated 9/9/2008 the lower appellate Court maintained the said order by observing that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction,balance of convenience lies in his favour, he will suffer irreparable loss and,therefore,confirmed the order of status quo. 6] The fact remains that till this date the plaintiff was unable to use the said parking place. 4 7] The basic suit and its prayers need detail enquiry and scrutiny.Threfore,unless it is decided and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when admittedly inspite of the order of status quo the plaintiff is unable to use the same till this date . I see there is no reason to allow to use the same pending the decision of suit. In the circumstances this amounts to practically granting the prayer of the suit itself .However,to avoid further delay I am inclined to expedite the suit. The suit is expedited . The parties to maintain the status quo as on today pending the suit. The Trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months. Without prejudice to the rights of the parties it is made clear as the landlord is ready to permit to park the car in compound without any obstruction pending the suit in view of statement made by petitioner no.2 who is present in the Court. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not create any third party right or interest in the said parking space in question. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anoop V.Mohta,J.)