1 AO 143/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.143 OF 2010 WITH CA NO.15378/2010. 1) Vijay Venkatesh Kondekar and 3 Ors. - APPELLANTS VERSUS 1) Vallabhadas s/o Venkatesh Kondekar and 3 Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.MM Patil (Beedkar),Advocate for Appellants; Mr.SR Rohile, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 3rd DECEMBER,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard. 2) Grant of injunction below Exhibit-5 in RCA No.197/2010 is questioned by present appellants (original defendants in the proceedings). 3) In RCS No.546/2001 styled as Vallabhdas and Ors. Vs. Vijaykumar and Ors., after evaluation of evidence and appreciation of the 2 AO 143/2010 documents, by order dated 28.6.2010 there was a decree dismissing the suit of the respondents in the present AO. 4) The learned District Judge granted injunction, considering that it was a prima facie case as regards possession of the suit property. The learned Judge also recorded, there will be irreparable loss in case temporary injunction is not granted. These observations of the learned Judge are obliterating the record as there was full-fledge trial and on assessment of the evidence, suit has been dismissed. The contention of the present respondents were negated to be in possession of the property. 5) The orders of maintaining status quo that was granted in WP No.6918/2006 have been mis-interpreted by the learned District Judge. The order, therefore, calls for interference and it is accordingly set aside. 6) However, considering the events that are recorded in WP No.6918/2006 and parties being interse close relations, litigating for the business premises and rights involved therein, the injunction would be shockingly bad and gloomy. Hence, the parties shall maintain status quo till the appeal is decided by the learned Judge. The learned Judge, seized with the appeal shall endeavour to dispose of the same up to 19th January, 2011. Both the parties to appear in 3 AO 143/2010 Appeal on 13th December, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. without any demur. There would not be adjournment as a matter of course. 7) The Appeal from Order stands allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs. CA disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/