1 wp 8950.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8950 OF 2011 Vishwanath Shankarappa Kasnale (Teli) .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Chandole, Advocate h/f Shri S. S. Chillarge, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. P. Phatake, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. T. Sakolkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed the suit for injunction. Along with the suit the petitioner has also filed an application for temporary injunction. The said application came to be rejected. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. Along with appeal the plaintiff also filed an application for injunction. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. The appeal before the District Court is still pending adjudication. 2 wp 8950.11 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the appeal was filed earlier the status quo was granted by the Appellate Court and thereafter application came to be rejected on 02 nd November, 2011. This Court on 23 rd November, 2011 had granted status quo. 3. Shri Sakolkar, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contends that the construction has been completed by the Gram Panchayat. 4. I am not deciding the matter on any merits. There are rival contentions. It would be in fitness of things to get the appeal decided on its own merits. In view of that the writ petition is disposed of. The lower Appellate Court shall decide the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 23/2011 expeditiously and preferably within a period of two (2) months from today. The order of status quo granted earlier i. e. with regard to nature of property to continue till then. 5. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not make any construction or deal with the said property in whatsoever manner. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11