gst 1 ao58.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 58 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2011. Nagindas Shamjibhai Shah .... ..... ..... ...Appellant. V/s Deo Kalyan Patil .... .. .... ..Respondent. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Adv. i/by Mr.N.P.Shimpi, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.D.D.Madon i/by Mr.R.S.Deshpande, Adv. For R.Nos. 1 to 6 Mr.G.S.Hegde, Adv. For R.No.7. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 2nd February., 2011 PC: Admit. Learned advocates for respective respondents waive service. However it is made clear that pendnecy of appeal would not come in the way of learned trial Court for proceeding with the suit and learned trial Court would proceed to decide the suit on its own merits in accordance with law. Since the decision of the suit would primarily depend upon interpretation of various statutory provisions and documents without there being much requirement for recording oral evidence learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from today. gst 2 ao58.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2011. IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 58 OF 2011 Nagindas Shamjibhai Shah .... ..... ..... ...Appellant. V/s Deo Kalyan Patil .... .. .... ..Respondent. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Adv. i/by Mr.N.P.Shimpi, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.D.D.Madon i/by Mr.R.S.Deshpande, Adv. For R.Nos. 1 to 6 Mr.G.S.Hegde, Adv. For R.No.7. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 2nd February., 2011 PC: Heard learned counsel for respective parties. Prima facie it appears thata the order of status-quo has been operating from 1.7.2004 in view of the orders passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation. If the civil application is allowed it will have the result of upsetting the status-quo which has been operating for a period of almost six years. It would also amount allowing the appeal at this stage without hearing the parties. 2. In so far as the interest of the appellant is concerned same can be secured. 3. Civil Application for stay is therefore rejected. However the respondent CIDCO is directed to earmark the land which as per the policy of CIDCO, the land owners are entitled to be allotted. It is further clarified that CIDCO shall also maintain status quo in respect of said lands which land owners are found to be entitled to be allotted till the disposal of the suit/appeal whichever is earlier. It is further made clear that decision regarding allotment shall be subject to decision of the suit/appeal whichever is earlier.