1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.F. NO. 3338/2009 IN First Appeal NO. 1464/2009 (Smt.Tulsabai Domaji Dhobale &another VERSUS Morba Amrut Hivase since deceased thro. Legal heirs Shantabai wd/o Morba Hivase & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.B. Patil, counsel for the appellants. Shri S.Y. Deopujari, counsel for the R-1 & 2. Ms. Deshpande h/f Shri P.G. Deshpande, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 8, 2010 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Shri Deopujari, the learned counsel for the non- applicants, strongly opposes the prayer made in the civil application as far as it seeks a direction to restrain the respondents from disturbing the possession of the applicant over the suit property as it is the case of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that they are in possession of the suit property and a finding in that regard has also been recorded by the trial Court. Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant- applicants, states that the applicants have, however, stated in the application that the applicants are in possession of the suit property and he reiterates that fact in his submission. 2 Since there is a serious dispute between the parties as regards the possession over the property, it would be necessary in the interest of justice to direct the parties to maintain the status quo as regards possession during the pendency of the first appeal. However, since the first appeal is admitted, the first part of the prayer clause can be granted and the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.09.2009 is stayed during the pendency of the first appeal. It is, however, made clear that the parties should maintain status quo as regards possession during the pendency of the first appeal. The civil application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE APTE