1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.441 OF 1997 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.442 OF 1997 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.74 OF 1995 Sushilabai w/o Shivaji Suryavanshi, R/o-Hangarga, Tq-Nilanga, Dist-Latur. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Muktabai w/o Ranga Digrare, R/o-Lodga, Tq-Ausa, Dist-Latur and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.T.M. Venjane Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. Meera Biradar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 . Mr.S.S. Halkude Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10825 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.74 OF 1995 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 10TH JULY, 2009. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for original Respondents. Civil Application No. 441 of 1997 preferred by the original Appellant for order of injunction restraining Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of suit property. Civil Application No.442 of 1997 preferred by original Appellant for appointment of Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of suit land Survey No.59 and 93/2 of village Lodga, Tq-Ausa, Dist-Latur. 3. Civil Application No.10825 of 2008 preferred by original Respondent No.3 for modification of status-quo order passed by this Court on 5th February, 1997. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant in Civil Application No.441 of 1997 makes a statement that the status-quo order passed on 5th February, 1997 to continue till hearing and final hearing of the present Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the Respondents have no objection for the same. 3 5. In view of these facts, status-quo order passed on 5th February, 1997 in Civil Application No.441 of 1997 to continue till the hearing and final disposal of the Second Appeal. Civil Application No.441 of 1997 disposed of accordingly. 6. In respect of Civil Application No.442 of 1997, learned counsel appearing of the behalf of the Applicant states that he is not pressing the present Civil Application and therefore the same is rejected as not pressed. 7. In respect of Civil Application No.10825 of 2008, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant states that Applicant is not pressing the present Civil Application and therefore the same is rejected as not pressed. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/JULY09/ca441.97