dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3986 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3986 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3986 OF 2008 Pandurang Nana Khabale & ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents. Mr.Narendra V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioners. Mr.A.P.Vanarase, AGP for the Respondents 1 to 6. Mr.Pratap Patil for respondents 7 and 8. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st November, 2008. : 21st November, 2008. : 21st November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner is original plaintiff. The petitioner has filed Suit for declaration and claiming ownership of the suit property by adverse possession and also prayed for injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of the suit properties in pursuance to the notice dated 11.1.2005 issued by defendant no.1 to hand over property to defendants 7 and 8. This itself needs that the defendants 7 and 8 are not in possession of the suit property even as per the notice itself. The trial court, on injunction application filed by the petitioners directed the plaintiff and defendant no.8 to maintain status-quo of the property. The Suit is pending. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, directed to maintain status-quo only in ( 2 ) respect of the residential house of the plaintiffs till disposal of the suit,. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has maintained the same and in my view, wrongly. 2. Having once granted status-quo with regard to the house property there is no reason not to grant status-quo in respect to surrounding area/land which is the subject matter of notice dated 11.1.2005. Admittedly, defendants 7 and 8 are not in possession of the same. Therefore, without expressing anything further on merits, at this stage, I am inclined to modify the orders passed by the courts below to the extent that the parties i.e. the petitioners as well as the respondents to maintain status-quo with regard to the whole property which is subject matter of the notice, pending the decision of the suit as at this stage what is important is the physical and actual possession of the plaintiffs which in the present case undisputedly is of the petitioner/plaintiff and definitely not of original defendants 7 and 8 and even of other defendants as the notice itself was initiated for possession at the instance of defendants 7 and 8. 3. The Appellate Court has rightly directed to dispose of the Suit in accordance with law as early as ( 3 ) possible. 4. In view of this, the present petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)