1 wp 7554.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7554 OF 2011 Lilabai Pannalal Pagariya .. Petitioner Versus Sayyad Hamid Sayyad Mehmoob .. Respondent Shri N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the defendant. The respondent has filed suit for injunction. Along with the suit the present respondent/original plaintiff has filed an application for temporary injunction (Exhibit 05). The said application is pending disposal. During the pendency of said application Exhibit 5, the present respondent/plaintiff filed an application Exhibit 12 seeking relief of status quo. The said application was not pressed. Thereafter, the present respondent again filed an application Exhibit 31 for the same purpose i. e. for status quo. The Trial Court allowed the said application Exhibit 31 and 2 wp 7554.11 granted status quo on 24.06.2011. The same is assailed in the present petition. 2. Shri N. L. Jadhav, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though Exhibit 5 is ready for hearing. The present petitioner has already filed her say, still said Exhibit 5 is not been decided and such applications are filed. Earlier Exhibit 12 was filed, it was not pressed. Thereafter Exhibit 31 was filed for the same relief, which was not maintainable, when the earlier application was rejected. The learned counsel as such prays to quash and set aside the order passed below Exhibit 31. 3. It appears that, the petitioner has already filed her say to the application Exhibit 5. When the said application Exhibit 5 is already ready for hearing instead of hearing such application like Exhibit 31, the Trial Court ought to have decided Exhibit 5 on its own merits. The order of status quo is passed on 24.06.2011 and I am informed that the Exhibit 5 is not still decided. Even as per order 39 Rule 3-A if any order is passed, then the Court is required to decide the injunction application within one month. Here the order of status quo is passed by the Court on 24.06.2011 and still Exhibit 5 is not decided. As the order of status quo is 3 wp 7554.11 passed on 24.06.2011, I am not interfering with the said order. However, the Trial Court is hereby directed to decide the said Exhibit 5 within a period of one month from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11