1 WP 7457/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7457 OF 2000 1. Sou. Suman Kisan Kenjale & Anr. 2. Kisan Rajaram Kenjale .. Petitioners V/s Shankar Mahadeo Yadav & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioners claim to be owner of the property bearing gat no. 41. They purchased half share in gat no. 41 from Yeshwant Tukaram Yadav by a registered sale deed dated 5th April 1994. They also claim to have purchased the remaining half share in the property from Yeshwant by another sale deed dated 16th March 1999. They filed a suit for injunction restraining Yeshwant (defendant no.2) and one Shankar Mahadev Yadav (defendant no.1) from disturbing their possession. The petitioners applied for an interim injunction which was granted by the trial Court, but on appeal the same was vacated by 2 WP 7457/2000 the appellate Court. Shankar (defendant no.1) contested the suit and the application for interim injunction contending that the suit property was a joint family property and he had purchased half share therein from the father of Yeshwant under a sale deed dated 3rd August 1970. The fact that it was a joint family property of Yeshwant is not disputed by the petitioners and in fact the petitioners in paragraph 2 of the plaint itself have stated that the suit property was a joint family property. 2. In view of the order that I propose to pass, it is not necessary to adjudicate upon the rival contentions of the parties. It is not necessary to decide about the validity of the sale deed in favour of Shankar (defendant no.2) and the validity of the subsequent sale of half share in favour of the plaintiffs at this stage. 3. On 5th February 2001, while issuing notice before admission this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. The order for maintenance of status quo is in force till date. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to adjudicate as to who is in possession of property and whether the finding of the lower appellate Court regarding possession is vitiated. Suffice it to say that if status quo as exists for a period of over 10 years, it should not be disturbed and the 3 WP 7457/2000 hearing of the suit only can be expedited. Accordingly I pass the following order. 4. Writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit. The trial Court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments to the parties and shall dispose of the suit expeditiously and, in any event, within one year from today. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)