1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 703 OF 2008. 1. Smt. Kunda Prakash Sinai Karapurkar, Widow of late Prakash Anant Karapurkar, Major of age, housewife, residing at Shri Mahalaxmi, House No.311/31(1) Greenhill Colony, Socorro, Alto Porvorim 2. Smt. Deepa Sagar Shiraonkar, 3. Shri Sunil alias Sagar Shiraonkar, Both major of age, residing at MIG-11, Housing Board, Bicholim- Goa. 4. Smt.Shilpa Viraja Shenvi, 5. Mr. Viraja Venkatsh Shenvi, Both major of age, residing at Shri Mahalaxmi, House No.311/31(1), Greenhill Colony, Socorro, Alto Porvorim 6. Shri Prabhakar alias Sagar Gajanan Nerulkar, major of age, Married, residing at House No.208, Near Hanuman Temple, Verem, Bardez, Goa. .. Petitioners. (original Defendants) Versus 1. Shri Vijay Balkrishna Karapurkar, Major of age, residing at Vithalwadi, Ansabhat, Mapusa. 2 2. Shri Vilas Balkrishna Karapurkar, Major of age, residing at Flat No.3, Bandekar building, 2nd floor, Kazi Wada, Ponda, Goa. 3. Shri Shashikant Anant Karapurkar, Major of age, married, House no.260, Sonar Bhat, Reis Magos, Verem, Bardez, Goa. 4. Shri Siddesh Satish Shenvi Karapurkar, Major of age, residing at House No.M/II/I, Housing Board, Bordem, Bicholim. .. Respondents (original Plaintiffs) Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D. Gaonkar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date :- 27 th November, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Gaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Rule. By consent, heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 3 05.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bicholim by which the Trial Court has appointed Commissioner to identify the suit property and further directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. This order came to be passed on the application dated 05.11.2008 filed by the petitioners, who are defendants in the said suit seeking extension of time to file the written statement. When the said application was filed, the plaintiffs stated that the defendant No.6 in the suit, had started interfering in the suit property and, therefore, sought status-quo order in respect of the suit property. The Trial Court directed the parties to maintain status- quo and further appointed Commissioner to identify the suit property. 4. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has erred in passing the order of status-quo in as much as initially when the application for injunction, was filed by the plaintiffs, the Trial Court had issued notice and had not granted any ex-parte relief. Therefore, according to Mr.Mulgaonkar, the Trial Court was not justified in passing the order of status-quo. In so far as the appointment of Commissioner is concerned, according to Mr.Mulgaonkar, it was premature for the Trial Court to appoint the Commissioner at the stage of dealing with the application for temporary injunction. 4 5. Mr. Gaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes that he will have no objection, if the impugned order appointing the Commissioner passed by the Trial Court, is set aside, but he submitted that it would be in the interest of justice not to interfere with the order of status-quo passed by the Trial Court since the defendant No.6 in the suit, had started interfering in the suit property after receipt of summons. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order, to the extent it appoints the Commissioner to identify the suit property, is liable to be set aside. The Trial Court, at the stage of injunction, that too, on an application filed by the defendant seeking extension of time to file written statement, was not justified in appointing the Commissioner to identify the suit property. To that extent, the Trial Court has not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law. However, in so far as the maintenance of status-quo is concerned, since it is the allegation of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.6 has started interfering in the suit property after service of summons and in the interest of justice, I am not inclined to interfere with the said part of the order. Moreover, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties state that the matter is fixed for argument on temporary injunction on Saturday, 29.11.2008. The interest of justice 5 would be served by directing the Trial Court to dispose of the application for temporary injunction expeditiously and in any case on or before 10.12.2008. 7. In the result, therefore, Rule is made partly absolute. The impugned order, to the extent it appoints the Commissioner to identify the suit property, is quashed and set aside. The impugned order in so far as it directs the parties to maintain status-quo, is maintained till the disposal of the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA