1 wp 4324.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4324 OF 2011 Mohd. Kasim Md Yaseen and others .. Petitioners Versus Abdul Qayum Mohd Ayub and others .. Respondents Shri M. V. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. S. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 deleted as per order dated 12.07.2011 The Respondent No. 3 served as refused to accept. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants/present petitioners from blocking the old way passing through gat Nos. 117, 118 and 119 and also to open the way to occupants of other lands, so also restraining the defendants from using the temporary newly created way through boundaries in between land gat No. 116 of plaintiff and land gat No. 123 towards the Northern side. The plaintiff also filed an application 2 wp 4324.11 for temporary injunction. The Trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The appellate Court allowed the appeal and clamped injunction against the present petitioners. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 2. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the Mamlatdar had already passed an order and Mamlatdar was seized with the proceedings. The said order of Mamlatdar is not challenged in the present suit. Separate revision is filed before the Additional District Collector who has passed an order of status quo. In view of orders passed by the competent authorities under the Statute, the Civil Court ought not have granted any relief. According to the learned counsel, civil proceedings are subsequent in point of time and as such, the Civil Court ought not have exercised the jurisdiction. The learned counsel further contends that the Mamlatdar after visiting the spot has drawn the panchanama and has come to the conclusion. There is no other evidence to show that the road was existing from the land of the present petitioners. 3. Per contra, Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the 3 wp 4324.11 respondent No. 1/original plaintiff submits that the proceedings before the Mamlatdar were subsequent in point of time and the Civil suit was filed earlier and the judgment of the Civil Court would prevail over the findings of the Mamlatdar. The learned counsel further contends that the lower Appellate Court on appreciating the documents on record, so also the situation of the property has considered all the aspects and has come to the conclusion. The Appellate Court has rightly considered that the defendants have obstructed the road which is going through their land and as such the villagers are going through the Northern side of the bandh of the plaintiff's land. 4. The observations at this stage are only prima facie in nature. No doubt, the Mamlatdar is competent authority in respect of the dispute about the way and the Mamaltdar after conducting the panchanama and visiting the spot has arrived at the conclusion. The revisional authority is seized with the matter. The revisional authority has directed the parties to maintain status quo. It is submitted that in the suit the evidence of the plaintiff is already recorded. 5. In the light of the above, it would be in the fitness of things 4 wp 4324.11 for the parties to obey the orders passed by the competent authority under the Statute till the disposal of suit on its own merits. 6. In the light of the above, the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit way. The Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11