1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8525 OF 2006 Shakuntala Gharat .. Petitioner Versus Prabhakar Gharat .. Respondent Ms.Gauri Godse for petitioner Mr.Vijay Gharat for respondent No.1. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6th February 2008 P.C. . This petition is directed against an order passed by the Dist.Judge, Alibaug allowing an appeal filed by the original defendants and vacating an interim order in favour of original 2 plaintiff - petitioner before me. 2. The order under challenge has been delivered on 28th March 2006. It is on the basis that petitioner plaintiff could not establish that she had any easement right of way of approaching her field i.e. Gat No.1392(1). Petitioner has filed a further affidavit on 17th April 2007 pointing out that in the light of the order of the trial court, which was in force till 28th March 2006 but vacated thereafter, the original defendants have started obstructing her right of way and passage from the subject portion/land by construction of fencing. Her apprehension was that the said fencing will block her right of way. 3. When this aspect was brought to the notice of Mr.Gharat appearing for respondent No.1, he makes a statement on behalf of respondent No.1 original appellant that the 3 fencing has not been constructed. Mr.Gharat states that the respondent No.1 is ready and agreeable to maintain status quo as prevailing today at site until Regular Civil Suit is disposed of. 4. The apprehension of Ms.Godse appearing for petitioner original plaintiff is that taking advantage of long passage of time and because this petition could not reach hearing for nearly a year and a half, respondents may make attempt to alter status quo at site or may urge that the status quo at site does not in any manner permit the petitioner from using her right of way i.e. eight feet in breadth from respondents’ property. 5. Needless to state that if the order that I propose to pass today does not sufficiently protect the rights of the parties, then, each one of them, including the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for additional relief or modifying the 4 order of status quo and such an application shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the order of the lower appellate court. 6. Accordingly, petition is disposed of by directing that during the pendency of R.C.S.No.86 of 2005, which is pending on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Alibaug all parties thereto shall maintain status quo, prevailing as of today. Learned Judge to whom the suit is assigned shall endeavour and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible and within six months from the date of receipt of this order. All contentions on merits are expressly kept open. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)