1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 94 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 114 OF 2009 Mr. Pandurang Mahadeo Barate. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr. Narayan Jagannath Barate & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Jaydeep Deo for the Appellant. Mr. R.S. Apte with Mr. Ashutosh Gole for Respondents 1 to 5. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1272 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1564 OF 2008 Mr. Narayan Jagannath Barate & Ors. ... Appellants. V/s. Mr. Pandurang Mahadeo Barate & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. R.S. Apte with Mr. Ashutosh Gole for the Appellants. Mr. Jaydeep Deo for the Respondents. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 5th APRIL 2010. P.C. :- The Appellant is the Original Plaintiff. He is aggrieved by an order dated 7th August 2008 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No.1108 of 2008. 2. The grievance of the Appellants is that the Courts below 2 ought to have granted an injunction in terms of the application and not restricted it as has been done in the impugned order. The impugned order restricts the injunction to the property more particularly described in paragraph 1(b) of the plaint. 3. When this Appeal from Order was placed before the Court on 2nd March 2009, notice was directed to be issued and a further order was made of status-quo. In other words, parties to the suit were directed to maintain status-quo. That order is continuing till date. 4. In the meanwhile, the Original Defendants to the Suit have filed an Appeal from Order being Appeal from Order No. 1108 of 2008 challenging that part of the order in favour of the Plaintiff, viz. maintenance of status-quo in respect of the property described in paragraph 1(b) of the plaint. 5. Both Appeals are placed for admission before me pursuant to service of notice on parties. After hearing them at some length and finding that an order of status-quo made by this Court has continued till date, in the peculiar facts of this 3 case and without expressing any final opinion on the merits, interest of justice would be served if the order passed by this Court dated 2nd March 2009, directing all parties to maintain status-quo, is continued till the hearing and final disposal of the subject Suit viz. Special Civil Suit No.1108 of 2008. 6. My attention is invited to some observations in paragraph 5 of the impugned order and it is urged that the same may prejudice the case of the Defendants at the Trial. This apprehension is without any substance. All observations and findings are prima-facie and tentative and made only with a view to dispose off the application at Exhibit 5. This will not in any manner influence the Court while trying the Suit which would be tried and decided on the basis of the evidence led by parties and materials placed on record. 7. Both the Appeals are disposed off in the above terms with no order as to costs. Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and stand disposed off. 8. In the peculiar facts of this case, the hearing of the subject Suit is expedited. 4 (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)