1 ao165.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 165 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11670 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mrs. M.A. Ansari, advocate for appellant. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Mr. G.R. Syed, advocate for respondent no. 1. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 17TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : . The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has tendered across the bar the affidavit of the appellant stating in para no.2 of the said affidavit that, the appellant has submitted an application on 29th September, 2011 along with the copy of the Appeal From Order no. 165/2011 before the respondent no.7-Tahsildar, Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded and requested not to take any 2 ao165.11 action on the basis of the order dated 25.08.2010, as the appellant has filed Appeal From Order before this Court and the matter was kept for hearing before this Court on 3rd October, 2011. However, the respondent no.7 i.e. Tahsildar, Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded has passed the order dated 1st October, 2011. 2. The learned A.G.P. on enquiry from the respondent no.7-Tahsildar, who is present in this Court, submits that such application was not received by the Tahsildar. 3. This Appeal From Order takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded. The operative part of the order reads thus :- Order The application, Ex.7, is partly 3 ao165.11 allowed. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are hereby restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff without following the due process of law till the decision of the suit. The prayer of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 6 and 7 be restrained from changing any revenue record of land Gat No. 198 admeasuring 2-H 73-R situated at village Yelegaon, Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded, in the name of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by way of mutation, is hereby dismissed. Cost in the main cause. Date : 25/08/2011. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. There is consensus amongst the counsels appearing for the parties that this Appeal From Order and Civil Application can be conveniently disposed of by setting aside the judgment and order partly and directing the concerned Court to dispose of the pending 4 ao165.11 Special Civil Suit No. 191 of 2010 within six months from today. Till the suit is disposed of, the parties to Appeal From Order through their Counsel have made a statement that the parties will maintain status-quo ante as on 26th August, 2011. 5. In the aforesaid background, it is accordingly ordered as follows : (i) The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded is directed to dispose of the Special Civil Suit No. 191 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible, however, within six months from today. (ii) Till Special Civil Suit no. 191 of 2010 is finally disposed of, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo ante as on 26th August, 2011. (iii) In view of the agreement between 5 ao165.11 the parties, the impugned judgment and order is set aside except the clause i.e. "Defendant nos. 1 to 5 are hereby restrained from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff without following the due process of law till the decision of the suit." 6. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent nos. 6 and 7, on instructions from respondent no.7, who is present in this Court makes a statement that yet mutation entries are not taken by him. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 fairly submits that let his vendor's name remain in revenue records till the disposal of the suit. 7. In the light of the above, the Appeal From Order and also the Civil Applications are disposed of. 8. Though the application filed by the 6 ao165.11 Tahsildar for recalling of the order of bailable warrant is rejected by this Court on the ground that the said bailable warrant is already executed. However, it is made clear that the said order of issuance of bailable warrant should not affect his service record. 9. It is needless to mention that the parties to the suit should co-operate the concerned Court for disposal of the suit as directed by this Court. The concerned Court should not unnecessary grant adjournment to either of the parties without any extra ordinary circumstance for granting such adjournment. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] ga s/ao165.11