upa 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.995 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.995 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.995 OF 2005 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION WRIT PETITION NO.316 OF 2004 NO.316 OF 2004 NO.316 OF 2004 Kalidas B. Wadekar ).. Applicant Versus Mohanlal B. Pardesh ).. Respondent Mr.G.S. Godbole for the Applicant. Mr.S.N. Chandrachud for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 3RD MARCH 2006 DATED : 3RD MARCH 2006 DATED : 3RD MARCH 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This Civil Application has been filed by the Applicant-original Respondent to the Petition seeking two prayers. The first prayer is that the Respondent be permitted to erect a barbed wire fencing enclosing an area admeasuring 149 sq.mtrs. i.e. 1600 sq.ft. which the Respondent claims is in his possession. The second prayer is that the Respondent be allowed to construct over an area admeasuring 74.5 sq.mtrs. on the South West corner of the suit lands. 2. This Civil Application is opposed by the original Petitioner in the Petition on the ground that upa 2 while admitting the Writ Petition, this Court had granted status quo as of the date when the Petition was heard. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondent to the Petition has been unable to show any change in the circumstances warranting any modification of the order of status quo. 3. Heard Advocates. 4. There is a serious dispute as to whether the Respondent to the Petition is in fact in possession of the 149 sq.mtrs. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the order of status quo, which has been passed after hearing both parties, need not be varied and shall continue. 5. Civil Application disposed of accordingly.