1 ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1755 OF 2010 Mangalprabhat Gumanmal Lodha. .. Petitioner Vs Indrapal Bala Patil & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel i/by M/s. Kanga & Co. for the Petitioner. Shri S.M. Oak for Respondent No.1. Shri Mahesh Patil i/by Mulani & Co. for the Respondent No.10. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2010 P.C: . Not on board. Taken on board. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the original 1st Defendant in a suit filed by the 1st to 9th Respondents. An application taken out by the 1st to 9th Respondents for temporary injunction was rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the said Respondents before the District Court. The challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order passed by the Appellate Court on 26th February, 2010 directing the parties to maintain status-quo till 15th March, 2 2010. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out that on the application for temporary injunction preferred in the appeal, on 11th February, 2010 only a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner which was made returnable on 26th February, 2010. He submitted that on the returnable date, the Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the application for temporary injunction. He submitted that though no change in the circumstances was pleaded in the application at Exhibit – 19 made by the original Plaintiffs, the learned District Judge has passed the impugned order of status-quo which is to operate till 15th March, 2010. He submitted that once ad-interim relief was refused on 11th February, 2010, there was no occasion for the Appellate Court to grant ad-interim relief on 26th February, 2010. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The application for temporary injunction in Appeal is pending. The impugned order is operating from 26th February, 2010 which will operate only till 15th March, 2010. If any application is made by the Plaintiffs for seeking continuation of the order dated 26th February, 2010, the Petitioner can always oppose the said application by pointing out that there is no warrant to continue the order of status quo. A substantive appeal is pending. The application for temporary injunction in the Appeal is also pending. Therefore, in writ 3 jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible to interfere with an ad-interim order which is to operate till 15th March, 2010. Though this Court is not interfering with the impugned order, it is obvious that if the application for temporary injunction in Appeal cannot be heard on the next date, the order dated 26th February, 2010 cannot be mechanically extended unless a case is made out for passing an order of status-quo. It is obvious that the Petitioner will be entitled to oppose the prayer for continuation of the said order on all permissible grounds including the grounds which are raised in this Petition. The Appellate Court will not be influenced by this order in as much as considering the limited duration of the impugned order, this Court has not interfered. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)