IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4054 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1237 OF 2004 RAGHUNATH DAGDU MALI ..APPLICANT V/S SHIVAJI BHAGWAN PATIL AND OTHERS. ..RESPONDENTS SHRI S.G. DESHMUKH FOR THE APPLICANT. SHRI UMESH MANKAPURE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. CORAM: A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates appearing the parties. This Civil Application is filed by the Appellant in the First Appeal. Appeal has been admitted for final hearing. The Applicant is the original plaintiff. He filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 3rd March 1999 allegedly executed by him in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondent was void. According to the case of the Appellant on 3rd March 1999 he was kidnapped by the first and second Respondents and their associates. The said Respondents obtained signatures of the Applicant on various blank forms and registers etc. It is the case of the Applicant that on the basis of the sale deed, the Respondents started interfering with his possession over the suit property and therefore he was forced to file : 2 : the suit. The Applicant has referred to the police complaint made by him. The suit was contested by the Respondents by filing the written statement. It is contended that the sale deed is legally and validly executed by the Appellant. The Respondents denied the various averments made in the Plaint. Reliance was placed on the joint statement of the Appellant and the 1st Respondent in presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 18th August, 2000. According to the case of the Respondents, the said joint statement shows that the Applicant accepted that the Respondents were in possession. A counter claim was also made by the Respondents claiming a decree for the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs out of the total amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- advanced by the Respondents to the Applicant. The trial court dismissed the suit and the counter claim. 2. The present application has been filed by the Applicant/Appellant seeking temporary injunction against the Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Applicant over the suit property. On 15th December, 2004 ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) was granted by this court. On 1st December, 2005 this court directed the parties to maintain status quo. Thereafter the application was adjourned from time to time and ad-interim order of status quo has been : 3 : extended. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Applicant is that there is material on record to show that the applicant is in possession of the suit property. He invited my attention to the order dated 30th June 2003 passed by this court in Appeal from Order No. 314 of 2000 filed by the Applicant. He also pointed out that in Civil Application No. 4823 of 2005 this court passed an order on 28th October, 2005 directing that police protection should be provided to the Applicant and his family members for a period of 15 days by the concerned police station. He submitted that the said orders passed by this court as well as the evidence on record clearly shows that the Applicant is in possession. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate for the Respondents is that the Appellant was never in possession and that from the date of the execution of the sale deed, the Respondents are in possession and are cultivating the suit property. His submission is that the ad-interim order dated 15th December 2004 is an ex parte order and the subsequent continuation of the ad- interim order is not on merits. He further pointed out that the order granting the police protection passed by this court is without considering the controversy regarding the possession of the parties over the suit : 4 : property. His submission is that even if this court is inclined to continue the order of status quo, this court will have to clarify that the Respondents are in possession. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the parties. The prayer made in this application is that the Respondent should be restrained from entering the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the Applicant had filed an Application claiming the same temporary injunction. The said application was rejected by the trial court by order dated 1st November 2002. While rejecting the said application, in paragraph 6 of the order, the learned Trial Judge recorded a prima facie finding that there were certain documents on record and affidavits which are helpful to the Respondents in proving their possession over the suit property. Appeal from Order No. 314 of 2000 was filed by the Applicant in this court for challenging the order dated 1st November 2002. In paragraph 2 of the said judgment, this court observed that : "I do not find any patent error or perversity to justify interference in the aforesaid interlocutory order. : 5 : However, in the larger interests of justice, the hearing of Regular Special Civil Suit No. 48 of 2002, pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, Sangli is expedited. Pending the disposal of the said suit, both the parties i.e. the Appellant as well as the Respondent shall maintain status-quo as on today." Thus it is obvious that this court confirmed the order dated 1st November 2002 passed by the trial court by which a prima facie finding was recorded holding that the Respondents were in possession. The perusal of the judgment impugned in the First Appeal shows that after considering the evidence on record, a finding was recorded by the trial court that the Applicant has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit property. The suit filed by the Applicant has been dismissed. The order dated 28th October 2005 passed by this court does not decide the issue regarding possession. 5. Considering the aforesaid orders passed during the pendency of the suit and considering the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment it is difficult to accept the contention of the Applicant : 6 : that he is in possession of the suit property. The material on record prima facie supports the contention of the Respondents that they are in possession. 6. However, the First Appeal has been admitted for final hearing. In the circumstances the order of status quo which was passed by this court in the Appeal from Order deserves to be continued till final disposal of the Appeal. Accordingly the Civil Application is disposed of by directing that the ad-interim order passed by this court on 1st December 2005 will continue to operate till disposal of the Appeal. 7. It must be stated that the findings recorded by this court in this order are for limited purpose of considering the prayer for interim relief in this application. 8. The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. --- (A. S. OKA, J) (A. S. OKA, J) (A. S. OKA, J)