1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 610 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2010 IN L. C. SUIT NO. 113 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.780 OF 2010 Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellants (Org. Defendant No.5) V/s. Tejuddin Husain Jamal .. Respondents Patel & Ors. ( Org. Defendants) Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Kejal Kamdar for the Appellants. Mr. Anil Singh i/b. Mr. D. R. Shah for Respondent No.1. Mr. P. G. Lad for Respondent No.4. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : JUNE 21, 2010 P.C: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is clear from the order passed by the learned Trial Judge that he has noted that the jurisdiction to decide the dispute vested in some other Authority and not in him. He has 2 also recorded that vide prayer clause (d) the Plaintiff has claimed appointment of Court Commissioner directing to visit the suit property and to bring on record the factual position of the site. Without noting that the prayer clause (d) also included a prayer for directing the parties to maintain the status-quo, the learned Judge proceeded to grant relief in terms of prayer clause (d). It is clear from the order that the learned Judge has not even noted that such a prayer for directing the parties to maintain status-quo was also made and therefore, it is clear from the order that the learned Judge has not granted any such prayer. It was necessary for him to decide whether he could grant such a prayer and therefore the matter needs to be remitted back to the Lower Court. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the impugned order, in so far as this ambiguity in the order is concerned, may be set aside and the learned Judge could be directed to reconsider whether he could grant such prayer in view of the observations in his order. 3. The parties agree that they would appear before the learned Trial Judge on Monday the 26th July, 2010. The 3 learned Judge may preferably hear the parties in the same week and decide this aspect within a period of two weeks. 4. The Appeal from Order is, therefore, disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application No. 788 of 2010 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)