: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3530 OF 2006 Parvatibai N. Mule & Ors. ....Petitioners V/s. Smt.Nilima S. Deshpande ....Respondent Ms.Gauri Godse for the Petitioners. Mr.C.G. Gavnekar for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 5TH JUNE, 2007. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. This Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment and order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Raigad in Civil Misc. Appeal No.48 of 2005. By the said order the Petitioners’ said Appeal came to be dismissed. 3. The factual matrix involved in the Petition is stated thus :- . The Petitioners are the original Plaintiffs, who : 2 : have filed R.C.S.No.90 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Khalapur, District Raigad against the Respondent, praying for a declaration that the suit property bearing Survey No.75, Hissa No.2, situated at mauje Wavandhal, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad is in actual possession, occupation and cultivation of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have further prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from obstructing the Petitioners’ possession, occupation and cultivation over the suit property. . In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed which is numbered as Exhibit 5, claiming an injunction protecting the Petitioners’ possession over the suit property. In the said application, the Respondent filed reply and contended that the Respondent is in possession of the suit property as owner since 2.12.1991 on the basis of a sale-deed. The said Exhibit 5 was allowed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Khalapur, District Raigad by his order dated 20.4.2005 and granted temporary injunction as claimed for by the Petitioners. The learned Judge while granting injunction came to a finding that the Petitioners are in possession and that the Respondent herein could not prove her : 3 : possession over the suit property. 4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.4.2005, passed on Exhibit 5, the Respondent filed Civil Misc. Appeal No.48 of 2005 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Raigad. The learned District Judge, Raigad by his judgment and order dated 6.6.2005, allowed the said Appeal and set-aside the injunction granted in favour of the Petitioners and the application Exhibit 5 was resultantly dismissed. While allowing the said Appeal, the learned District Judge has taken into consideration the revenue record in respect of the property in question and has come to a conclusion that the said revenue record belies the case of the Petitioners that they were in possession. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Ms.Godse, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contends that the order passed by the trial Court being a well reasoned order therefore the findings given by the trial Court that the Petitioners were in possession could not have been disturbed by the Appellate Court. The learned counsel submits that the Appellate Court without properly appreciating the revenue record, and solely on the basis of the said record has come to an : 4 : erroneous conclusion that the Petitioners are not in possession. The learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No.1 is claiming through one Balkrishna Dhondu Kainkar, but as far as revenue record is concerned the said Kainkar was concerned only with survey No.75/1 and not survey No.75/2, whereas the Petitioners are concerned with survey No.75/2 for which the Petitioners have evidence in their possession. The learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Court proceeded on an erroneous footing that the Petitioners have filed the suit only for injunction, whereas the suit has been filed for both injunction as well as declaration as regards the Petitioners’ possession, cultivation etc. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting Respondent - Mr.C.G. Gavnekar submits that except one document, the Petitioners have no evidence in their possession to substantiate their case as regards survey No.75/2. Mr.Gavnekar drew my attention to various documents on which reliance has been placed by the Respondents and on the basis of which the Appellate Court has allowed the Misc. Civil Appeal. 7. In the instant case, it is pertinent to note : 5 : that the trial Court has on the basis of the material before it, deemed it fit to the grant discretionary relief of temporary injunction, prayed for by the Petitioners in the suit. The said temporary injunction has been vacated and the application has been dismissed by the Appellate Court on the basis of the conclusion arrived at by it based on the revenue record. Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have found something in favour of the Petitioners and the Respondent respectively, the issues raised in my view by the parties cannot be concluded one way or other at the interim stage and would require a full trial. In my view, therefore, without going into the merits of the rival contentions, it would be just and proper to direct the parties to maintain status-quo regarding the suit property and direct the trial of the suit to be expedited and to conclude the same within a particular time frame. Both the learned counsel for the parties are agreeable to this course of action being followed. 8. Resultantly, the following directions are issued :- i). The impugned order dated 28.2.2006 is set aside. The parties are directed to : 6 : maintain status-quo as regards the suit property pending the disposal of the said R.C.S. No.90 of 2003 notwithstanding the order dated 20.4.2005 passed on Exhibit 5 and the Appellate order dated 6.6.2005, impugned in the present Petition. ii). Hearing of R.C.S. No.90 of 2003 is expedited and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the said suit by 31.3.2008 on its own merits uninfluenced by the order dated 20.4.2005 and the Appellate order dated 6.6.2005 as also the impugned order. Both the learned counsel for the parties are agreeable that the parties would co-operate in early disposal of the said suit. 9. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with the parties to bear their respective costs. (R.M. SAVANT, J)