1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11535 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 789 OF 2009 Prayagbai w/o Sadashiv Khandare and anr. ...Applicants VERSUS Ramaji s/o Mondji Khandare ...Respondent ..... Shri J.M.Murkute, advocate for the applicants Shri S.G.Dargad, advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 14 th February, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard respective learned counsel for the parties. 2 Perused the contents of the application, which has been preferred by the applicants/appellants i.e. original defendant nos. 1 and 2 requesting that the impugned judgment and decree, dated 11.8.2009, passed by the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil 2 Appeal No. 67 of 2004 be stayed. 3 The respondent i.e. original plaintiff has filed the affidavit in reply and opposed the said prayer. 4 It appears that the respondent i.e. original plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for declaration and injunction requesting to restrain the defendants from causing obstruction and interfering over the suit land i.e. Gat No. 107, admeasuring 1 Hectare 20 Ares, situated at village Digras Wani, Taluka Kalamnuri, District Hingoli, claiming that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the said suit land. However, the said suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. 5 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2004 before the District Court, Hingoli and said appeal was allowed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge-1 dated 15.9.2004, passed by the Trial Court i.e. the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hingoli in Regular Civil Suit No. 322 of 2001 (Old No. 136 of 1999) was set aside and the said suit was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit land and the defendants were restrained from 3 obstructing/interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 6 Thus, apparently the Trial Court did not find the plaintiff in possession of the suit land; whereas the First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Accordingly, there are contrary findings of both the said lower courts to each other. 7 Admittedly, the appeal has been admitted on 13.4.2010 and substantial questions of law have been framed by this court. 8 In view of the said position, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today in respect of the suit land. 9 The present Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/ca11535.09