1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1716/2011 (AVINASH G. KHANDARE VERSUS SHAMRAO LODI JAMODKAR & 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.J. Bhoot h/f Shri R.L. Khapre, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.J. Thakkar, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 10 , 2011 . Heard. The trial Court had held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the respondents were, therefore, restrained from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. The first appellate Court, however, reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court and held that the respondent no.1-defendant no.1 was in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff was not entitled to grant of temporary injunction. Both the parties claim to be in possession of the suit property. In this Court also, it is canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the property, whereas it is canvassed on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 is in possession of the suit property. There is a serious dispute in regard to the possession of the suit property. 2 The learned counsel for the parties, on instructions from the parties, state that it would not be in the interest of justice to issue Rule in the writ petition and keep it pending and in stead the trial Court should be directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible so that the parties would maintain status quo as regards possession during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel for the parties state that their clients agree that they would maintain status quo as regards possession during the pendency of the civil suit. Hence, since the admission of the writ petition would not serve any fruitful purpose, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and a direction to the parties to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE