( 1 ) wp7121-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7121 OF 2010 Shri Premchand Manakchand Oswal PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Prakashchand Navalmal Nimbajiya and another. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.T. Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th January, 2011] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is original plaintiff. He filed suit (R.C.S. No. 103/1996) wherein ad-interim injunction was sought. The trial Court, however, issued order of status quo. The petitioner alleged that there was breach of the status quo order and, therefore, sought action under Order-XXXIX Rule-2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court rejected the ( 2 ) wp7121-10 application holding that there was no positive prohibitory order of injunction and as such, the breach cannot be assumed. The petitioner preferred appeal vide Misc.Civil Appeal No. 88/2008, which came to be dismissed on the ground that the first Appellate Court had no jurisdiction in as much as the appeal itself was not maintainable. 3. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner, it is amply clear that the dispute is outcome of "double-speak order" like "status quo". In fact, ordinarily, such kind of order shall not be passed by the trial Court or any other Court unless the existence of a particular status of which continuity is required to be ensured, is well established or admitted, as a fact. For example, if a demolition notice is given by the Municipal Corporation and the same is challenged by holder of the property, it can be safely assumed that the house property exists and the status quo order will have meaningful effect. However, status quo order in respect of possession of an agricultural land is likely to be interpreted in both the ways and as such, it is referred hereinabove as "double-speak order". In the present case, such erroneous order was rendered and as such, when there was no prohibitory injunction issued, there was no question of breach under ( 3 ) wp7121-10 Order-XXXIX Rule-2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp7121-10