1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3352 OF 2010 (Babul D. Meshram and others ..vs.. Suresh S. Lanjewar and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.V. Khare, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri V.D. Muley, Advocate for respondent No.1, None for respondent Nos. 2 to 7. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 09 , 2011 . By this petition, the orders passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court in the year 2009 are impugned. The matter is pending before this Court for more than six months. It would not be in the interest of justice to issue Rule in the matter and keep it pending as the writ petition arises out of the interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. 2. The original plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims to be in possession of the entire suit property i.e. 9 acres. The legal heirs of original defendant No.7/the petitioners are claiming possession over 5 acres of the suit property. Learned Counsel for the parties on instructions from their clients, state that the parties are ready to maintain the status quo as regards the possession during the pendency of the suit, in case this Court directs the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, within a stipulated time. 3. Since the pendency of this writ petition would not serve any purpose, it would be necessary in the interest of 2 justice to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the trial Court to decide the civil suit as expeditiously as possible and positively within a period of one year from the date of this order. The parties are directed to maintain status quo during the pendency of the civil suit. Even otherwise, the parties have shown their willingness to maintain the status quo as regards the possession during the pendency of the civil suit. The order passed by both the Courts would not operate in view of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE pma