1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 891 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1097 OF 2009 Tukaram Bhiku Pisal ... Appellant v/s Vikas Bajrang Gavali & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the appellant. Mr.K.B.Sonwalkar for the Resp. Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The appeal from order has been preferred against the order passed by the lower Appellate Court on 6.8.2009. By this order, the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Satara, has refused to grant any interim relief to the appellant. 2. The suit was filed by the appellant for declaration of his title in respect of Gat No.627, which admittedly is R.S.No. 246/1. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to the entire suit property. A finding has been recorded by the Trial Court 2 that the plaintiff is the owner of 50% of the suit property i.e. of R.S.No.246/1. The Trial Court therefore dismissed the suit of the plaintiff claiming his title over the entire property. 3. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal and has sought an injunction. That injunction has been refused. 4. Admittedly, right through the proceedings in the Trial Court and till the injunction application in the appeal was heard, there was an injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. Even thereafter i.e. after the impugned order dated 6.8.2009, according to the plaintiff, the Appellate Court had passed an order staying its own order. 5. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property i.e. R.S.No.246/1. The sale deed under which the defendants claim their ownership mentions the R.S.No.246/2 and not R.S.No.246/1. 6. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to maintain status-quo as of today during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Appeal expedited. 3 8. Appeal from order disposed of accordingly. 9. In view of disposal of the appeal from order, the civil application does not survive and stands dismissed. ..... 4