1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 539/2010 Smt. Parbhavati Vilas Sawarbandhe -: versus :- Prakash Sitaram Sawarbandhe and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2010. Heard Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for petitioners /plaintiffs. He contends that the District Judge-1, Bhandara has unnecessarily confused the identify of Gut No. 230 ad-measuring 1.61 Hectors of Mouza Shivnala, Taluq Paoni, District Bhandara with field name 'surkutya'. He points out that there was compromise decree between the family members and in it field survey / gut no. 230 is given to petitioners. According to him the Revenue records are also in the name of petitioners and he fairly states that in Revenue records for the year 2009-10 name of respondents has also been added. Shri N.S. Talmale, learned counsel for respondents on the other hand states that by creating unnecessary confusion Writ Petition has been filed. He points out that the decree passed in partition suit mentions total area of field 'surkutya' to be 2.50 Acres. According to him, therefore said area does not match with the area of gut 2 no.230. He has further pointed out the operative part of compromise decree in partition suit to show that it does not mention field survey no. 230 or 'surkutya'. With the assistance of both the learned counsel I have perused the records. Learned counsel for petitioner has tried to show to this Court that some revenue records which according to him show name of petitioners/plaintiffs from 1986 against gut no.230. He states that those records are already filed in Trial Court and were before the Appellate Court, however, those records are not filed along with the Writ Petition. I have perused the judgment delivered by the lower Appellate Court. Prima facie it is apparent that the area 1.61 Hectors of gut no.230 does not match with field by name 'surkutya'. The said property is alleged to be already sold by respondent no.1 to respondent no.5. The compromise decree in its operative part accepts 1/4th share of petitioners/plaintiffs. It further states that out of total 6.50 Acres of field by name Nimbawali Bandi, 2 Acres is given to petitioners. The other field has been mentioned by name Sarbandi and its' entire i.e., total area 6.25 acres has been given to present petitioners. The other portion of compromise decree deals with pair of bullocks, residential house etc., and the same is not relevant in this Writ Petition. The compromise decree therefore prima facie does not show grant of 'surkutya' to petitioners/plaintiffs. The Revenue records at least for the year 2009-10 mention name of respondent no.1 along with other respondents against field survey no.230 area 1.61 hectors. In this situation, I find it appropriate to direct 3 both the parties to maintain status quo as on today till the suit is decided. Any of the parties shall not create third party interest or any encumbrances in suit field during the pendency of the suit. The suit filed is of the year 2009 both the counsel are requesting for its expeditious disposal. In the present circumstances, suit needs to be decided as expeditiously as possible, however, parties to request the trial Court with appropriate application for expeditious disposal assuring with all the cooperation and also undertaking not to obtain any adjournment. If such application is filed, trial Court is free to consider it as per its own calendar. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.