:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6713 OF 2007 Naresh Nemichand Jain ...Petitioner Versus M/s.Kajal Enterprises and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.A.K.Abhyankar Sr.Adv. i/by. R.D. Suryavanshi for the petitioners. Anil C.Singh i/by. Mr.D.R.Shah Adv. for Respondent no.1 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The Trial Court while deciding the Application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for violation and disobedience of a direction to maintain status-quo has at one place observed that the application and the allegations made therein would be considered at the stage of final hearing of the suit, but, has proceeded to dismiss the application itself. That is how the aggrieved original plaintiff is before this court. :2: :2: :2: 2. Mr.Abhyankar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the order of status-quo was passed on 19.12.2006. Initially the order was to remain in force until a reply is filed by the original defendant. In reply filed by the original defendant on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding and Public Notice, it was urged that third party rights have been created already in respect of the suit property. 3. Mr.Abyankar brings to my notice the observations in the Trial court’s impugned order that on 24.12.2006, certain documents have been registered which included a power of Attorney. 4. Mr.Shah appearing for the original defendant does not dispute that there is a contradiction in the order passed on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC. He fairly concedes the position that the said application could not have rejected in the light of the observations made earlier that it will be decided alongwith the suit. :3: :3: :3: 5. In the light of the above contention and the position emerging from the record, it is directed that the application under Order 39 Rule 2A be decided alongwith the suit uninfluenced by any observations in the impugned order, but, after considering all pleas raised by both sides. With these clarifications, this petition is disposed off. In the light of the order passed on the Writ Petition, the Appeal from Order No. 876 of 2007 does not survive. The Trial Court to proceed with the suit and the pending Application under Order 39 Rule 2A and pass appropriate orders without being influenced by the disposal of this Appeal. sd/- *****