1 srk IN THE HIGH COUT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 908 OF 2009 Ajit Arjun Desai .. Appellant vs Sai Dham Charitable Trust & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. E.K. Sasidharan with Mr. V.S. Pandey for Appellant. Mr. S.S. Kumbhakoni with Mr. S.T. Manek, Mr.D.V.Sutar, and Ms. Hetal Patel, i/b Parag B. Shelke for Respondent Nos. 3,4, 6 and 10. CORAM: R.S.MOHITE, J DATE: 9th September, 2009. P.C. 1 This is an Appeal filed by the original plaintiff who has filed a suit for declaration and injunction by which he was dispossessed from the suit property. The suit property as described in the plaint is a commercial structure ad-measuring 650 square meters situated in land bearing CTS No. 712 of village Poisar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai, near Sai Dham Mandir. The defendant No.1 in the suit is Sai Dham Charitable Trust which is running the said Mandir. Other defendants are trustees. 2 It is the case of the plaintiff that, he came into occupation of the suit premises under an agreement dated 02.02.1999 which has been produced by him on record. It is his further case that the hall between the suit premises and the Sai Dham Mandir which is managed by defendant No.1 Trust was allegedly 2 demolished on 28.11.2006.. The plaintiff has annexed a rough sketch of the suit property along-with his plaint. It appears from the record that a Court Commissioner came to be appointed and the said Commissioner submitted his report, which indicates that rough sketch as has been submitted by the plaintiff with the plaint is accurate. On the basis of the Commissioner Report, the City Civil Court passed an order of status-quo on 11.01.2007. However, after hearing both the sides Notice of Motion dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.08.2009. 3 After hearing both the sides, in my view, there are arguable points made out by the Appellant. I find that the impugned order does not hold that the agreement dated 02.02.1999 is a bogus document or does not pertain to the suit property. In fact, the order accepts that plaintiff has produced documents to show his possession till 28.11.2006 but he is not able to show his possession thereafter. 4 At this late stage, the advocates appearing for both the parties state that, the status-quo order as operating during the pendency of the Notice of Motion No. 110 of 2007 may be continued pending the disposal of the suit and the appeal may be disposed off. The Appeal is therefore disposed with a direction that the ad-interim order operating during the pendency of the Notice of Motion will continue during the pendency of the suit. 3 5 The hearing of the suit is expedited and same may be disposed of on or before 31st December, 2010. Judge.