1. wp 3179-11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3179 OF 2011 Nikita Associates & Anr .. Petitioners Vs M/s. Nice-Sites & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Parag V. Dubey for the Petitioners CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2011. P.C.: 1. The grievance of the petitioners (original defendant nos. 3 and 4) in this petition is that the order of status quo was granted by the trial Court exparte though the petitioners had filed a caveat. According to them, the fact that the caveat was filed was suppressed by the respondent no. 1 (plaintiff) and the order of status quo was obtained by suppression of the caveat. The very grievance was made by the petitioners before the trial Court by making an application for vacating exparte order of status quo. The trial Court rejected the application. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 2. The respondent no. 1 had offered reasonable explanation to the trial Court for not disclosing the fact of filing of the caveat. The respondent no. 1 has stated that the caveat was received 1 1. wp 3179-11.doc by an employee of respondent no. 1 firm but the employee had not communicated the same to respondent no. 1. The employee had also not kept the caveat in the relevant file and therefore respondent no.1 was not aware of the caveat. The explanation has been accepted by the trial Court and I see no reason to take a different view which, in the absence of any perversity, is impermissible in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I am informed at the bar that the application for injunction (Exhibit 5) made by the respondent no. 1 firm has not yet been heard on merits and exparte order of status quo passed on 4th February 2011 still remains in force. The order of status quo is in the nature of injunction restraining the petitioners from doing anything which would alter the status quo. In view of the fact that such order was passed exparte, the trial Court ought to have heard the application expeditiously and within thirty days as provided under Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Be that as it may, the trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the hearing of the application at Exhibit 5 and decide it within a period of one month. Wit this direction, the petition is disposed of. 4. All concerned to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Personal Assistant. Registry 2 1. wp 3179-11.doc shall communicate this order to the trial Court by fax. [ D.G. KARNIK, J ] 3