1 ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1119 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6580 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1120 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6565 OF 2008 Shri Kailas Mahadeo Mhaske & Anr. ...Applicants. Vs. Shri Vasant Changdeo Gaikwad ...Respondent. Mr. Dilip Bodake, for the Applicants. Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Respondent. CORAM :­ ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :­ 1ST JULY, 2009. P.C.­ 1. These two Civil Applications filed by the Defendants including Original Defendant No.1 for clarification of an order dated 1st October, 2008, whereby, this Court has directed both the parties to maintain status­ quo. 2. The strong reliance is placed on 2006(2), All M.R.(S.C.) 56, Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr. Vs. Praveen Kumar Singh, and thereby contended that an order directing the parties to maintain the status­quo 2 should be clear and it is necessary to indicate what the status­quo is. 3. Admittedly, the Trial Court has granted injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, with regard to the property in question, against the Defendants. The Miscellaneous Appeals were preferred. The Appellate Court, by an order dated 20/08/2008 reversed the order passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit 5. However, by an order dated 26/08/2008, the Appellate Court itself had stayed the order dated 20/08/2008. 4. The Plaintiff, therefore, preferred Writ Petitions against the said order dated 20th August, 2008 passed by the Appellate Court reversing the order of the Trial Court. 5. After hearing both the parties in this background, on 1st October, 2008, this Court has directed the parties to maintain the status­quo as both the parties were claiming physical possession of the property. The fact remained even on that day that the injunction order passed by the Trial Court in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendants was in force though findings were against the Plaintiff. In the result, the order passed by the Trial Court in favour of the Plaintiff has been continuing since then. It means, the possession of the Plaintiff has been maintained. The Court had taken note of physical possession of the property on the date of the order of status­quo. 6. In view of this fact, I see there is no clarification is necessary. The order speaks for itself as one need to consider the order in the background 3 of the particular litigation and the submission made, based upon the material available on record. The parties even at the relevant time were fully aware of the situation. These Applications for clarification so sought in the circumstances is uncalled for and basically when it is filed through another advocate. 7. This Court in Shobha Bajirao Damodar Vs. Triratna Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Akola, 2009(1) Mh.L.J. 979, while considering the aspect of Order 47, Rule 1, filing such repeated petitions and changing the Advocates has deprecated and in fact awarded costs of Rs.5,000/­. That was done in reference to the order passed by the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., AIR 1997 S.C. 1005 by observing in para 2 which reads as under:­ “2. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate­on­record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.” 8. In view of this, both the Civil Applications are dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.2,000/­ each. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)