(1) WP. 2181.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2181 OF 2010 Mangaldas S/o Ghanshamdas Zaveri Age : 53 years, Occu : Business R/o N­9 L­115/3, Shivajinagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad at present Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad .. Petitioner VERSUS 1] Rambhau S/o Dada Gaikwad Age : 60 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 2] Sanjay S/o Rambhau Gaikwad, Age : 30 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad 3] Raju S/o Rambhau Gaikwad, Age : 35 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Chitegaon, Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R.L. Chhabda, Advocate h/f. Mr. V.E. Navhate, Advocate for respondent no.2 ... CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:­ 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage. (2) WP. 2181.2010 2] The application tendered by the petitioner herein claiming an order of injunction, restraining the defendants from creating any obstruction in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff has been turned down by the trial Court in view of the order dated 30.10.2009. However, the trial Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo till the final decision of the suit. It is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner­original plaintiff that initially the trial Court had granted ex­parte order of injunction against the defendants. However, after hearing both the parties the application tendered by the plaintiff seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit has been turned down and further the parties are directed to maintain status quo. The petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application no. 246 of 2009 which was heard and disposed of by the District Judge­4, Aurangabad who was pleased to dismiss the Appeal in view of the order dated 21.1.2010. 3] So far as the possession of the petitioner over the disputed property is concerned, there is ample evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Courts below also lead to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed property. The only apprehension expressed by the defendants is that the plaintiff may go ahead with the construction (3) WP. 2181.2010 over the disputed property and may claim equities after passage of time. In order to address the apprehension expressed by the defendants, the plaintiff has produced an undertaking on record, thereby assuring to remove the construction at his own costs in the event of the decision of trial Court going against the petitioner­plaintiff. The counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner will not claim equities after passage of time merely on the ground that certain developments are carried over the disputed properties. The undertaking tendered by the petitioner is accepted and is marked "X" for identification. The respondents also do not have serious objection to pass appropriate orders on accepting the undertaking. 4] In this view of the matter, and further in view of the undertaking tendered by the petitioner, the application seeking temporary injunction against the defendants during continuance of the suit shall be deemed to have been allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/­ (R.M. BORDE, J.) arp