1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4841 OF 2007. Sambappa S/o Babappa Teli ... Petitioner. Versus Umakant S/o Bandappa Teli and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.J.R.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.B.Patil, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.R.Kale, advocate holding for Mr.R.B.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.7. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the original plaintiff is challenging order dated 15.6.2007,rendered by the learned District Judge, Ahmedpur in (RCA No.86/2005), whereby the 2 application of the appellants/Respondents for grant of Police aid was allowed. 3. It is not necessary to elaborately set out rival contentions and facts. Suffice it to say that the petitioner filed suit for declaration of ownership and injunction vide RCS No.44/1994. The suit came to be decreed after fullfledged trial. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the original defendants by filing two separate appeals. It appears that the appellants in RCA No.86/2005 filed an application for interim injunction and stay vide Exh.5/7 in the first appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge by order dated 15.11.2005 directed the parties to maintain statusquo till the decision of the application. Needless to say, the application has not been finally decided. The ad-interim order dated 15.11.2005 runs as follows : "Heard both the sides. In the interest of justice and for the fair trial of the matter, both the parties are directed to maintain statusquo in 3 respect of the suit property, till the decision of this application only. Sd/- 15.11.05 Addl.District Judge." Thereafter the said appellants filed an application seeking the Police aid to execute the said order. By one line order "granted vide Section 151 of the C.P.C.", the application came to be allowed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the nature of impugned order, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order suffers from perversity and arbitrariness. The Police aid could be sought only when there was need to protect rights of the parties and to execute a positive order. The order of statusquo can not be treated as affirmative order in favour of any party. As a matter of fact, the practice of passing only statusquo order by the appellate Court, wherein the question of possession is subject of controversy is quite improper. The first appellate Court was required to decide the 4 interim application on merits without passing such kind of nebulous order at the inception. The order to maintain statusquo may be befitting when it relates to any tangible structure like a house property if the same is under threat of demolition. In case of an agricultural land or in case of a house property regarding which threat of dispossession is not eminently noticed, it would be always necessary to first ascertain the question of actual possession and first to decide such kind of interim application. One can not be oblivious of the fact that there was decree of injunction in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, it was more necessary for the first appellate Court to exercise the discretion with albeit sloth. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is totally unsustainable. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The first appellate Court to decide the interim application on its own merits or to decide the appeal itself expeditiously. The observations in this order shall not be considered while deciding the main 5 application on merits or the appeal on merits as the case may be. The parties to appear before the first appellate Court on 20.7.2009. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp484107