1 CA-647.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.647 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.501 OF 2010 Mathurabai Bhalchandra Inamdar .... Appellant Vs. Bapu Chandu Jadhav, since deceased, through LR D.B. Jadhav & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant. Shri Dilip Bodake for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 03, 2010 P.C: 1. The learned District Judge has refused injunction to the appellant holding that the appellant was not in possession. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the Civil Judge while dismissing the appellant s suit had observed in para 27 of the judgment that admission of respondent No.1 that the plaintiff was in possession was a stray admission. The learned counsel for the appellant made available for my perusal a copy 2 CA-647.10 of the deposition of respondent No.1 wherein the respondent had categorically stated that till 1979 he was in possession and thereafter the present appellant is in possession. He had gone ahead in further cross-examination to state that all the entries in the record were in the name of the appellant. Therefore, it is not a stray statement made by respondent No.1 at an unguarded moment. Fortunately, respondent No.1 himself is present in the Court. He is a teacher by profession and truthfully, did not say that he did not make such a statement before the trial Court. 2. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the appellant had made admission in the written statement in Civil Suit No.11 of 1972 that the respondent was in possession and therefore showed the copy of written statement filed in the suit. Para 13 thereof, on which the learned counsel places reliance, does not show that there is any such admission. In view of this, till the disposal of this appeal, or the appeal before the District Court, the respondents are restrained from disturbing the appellant s possession over the suit property. 3 CA-647.10 3. Both the learned counsel agree that they will instruct their counterparts in the District Court not to seek any adjournment and to extend full co-operation to the District Court for the expeditious disposal of the appeal. The learned District Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal as early as possible and in any event within two months. 4. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that since no injunction was so far granted and the appellant had in fact lost in the Courts below, this order may be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks to enable the respondents to take the matter further. The order may be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks, subject to the respondents maintaining status quo. This, too, should not become an obstacle for the disposal of the appeal by the District Court. 5. The civil application is disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)