:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3040 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3040 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3040 OF 2008 Smt. Manjulaben G. Chauhan ..Petitioner V/s Dahyabhai Jivanbhai Chauhan ..Respondent Mr.Raju Desai i/b S.R. Bhalekar for the petitioner Ms P.V. Badadare for the respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2008 : 10TH JUNE, 2008 : 10TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 1-4-2008 in so far as it relates to the direction given by the Appellate Court to maintain status-quo as regards the possession of the suit property is concerned. 2. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion, while deciding the Application/Appeal that prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner would put to irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. However, while deciding the appeal instead of granting injunction, status-quo is granted, leaving the parties to interpret the :2: meaning of the status-quo in so far as their possession is concerned. 3. The petitioner’s late husband and the respondent were brothers and the dispute relates to one of the ancestral properties bearing survey No. 344/2/2, at Athal admeasuring 51 Are. There was a partition between the petitioner and respondent to the extent of 25 and 1/2 gunthas each in respect of this property. As the boundaries were not described properly when the ancestral property was partitioned on 19-2-2000, to remove any ambiguity, another deed was executed on 24-2-2000 and the parties also produced one coloured map before the Mamlatdar reflecting their respective shares therein. The said map was signed by the parties and accordingly the Mamlatdar passed an order in respect of the partition and the mutation entries were also effected. 4. The dispute essentially arose between the parties as respondent now claims that there was a mistake in the colouring of the map and therefore he had filed an application to the Mamlatdar requesting him to make a correction in the map and it is alleged :3: that the respondent is now encroaching upon the property of the petitioner. 5. In my view the respondent ought to have filed a substantive appeal as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, instead of merely filing an application, if the respondent is at all aggrieved by the order of the Mamlatdar in respect of the mutation entries in the revenue records. The said appeal has been provided under section 230 of the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Administration Regulation Act 1971. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent on taking instructions, informs the Court that the respondent is willing to file the appeal as provided in the Dadra & Nagar Haveli Land Administration Regulation Act, 1971, within one month, if such liberty is granted by this Court in view of the fact that the Appeal may be time barred. 7. In the circumstances, the order of the Appellate Court in so far as it relates to granting of status-quo is set aside and liberty is granted to :4: the respondent to file the aforesaid Appeal. The concerned Authority is directed to decide the Appeal within 2 months. The respondent shall not disturb the possession of the petitioner in respect of suit property pending the suit. In the event of any changes as a result of any orders being passed in the Appeal which is to be filed, the parties are at liberty to make necessary application to the Trial Court. The time granted by the Appeal Court to decide the suit pending in the Trial Court is enlarged for a further period of 6 months from today. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent and shall stand disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)