(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 9044 of 2008 (In Writ Petition No. 3063 of 2007) Kausalyabai w/o. Kashinath Kathare. .. Applicant. versus 1. Dagdu s/o. Dattoba Kshirsagar, 2. Dnyanoba Saheb Suryawanshi, 3. Shivaji Saheb Suryawanshi, 4. Chingubai Subhash Londhe, 5. Sanjubai Shrikant Kathare, 6. Saheb Shankarrao Suryawanshi, 7. Vedwanti Nagnath Suryawanshi, 8. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 9. The Additional Collector, Latur. .. Non-applicants 10. Prakash s/o. Murlidhar Kasat. (Nos.10 & 11 - Subsequent 11. Harakchand s/o. Gulabchand Loya purchasers) .......................... Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. (2) Mr. S.D. Ghayal, Advocate, for non-applicant nos.2 to 7. Assistant Government Pleader, for non-applicant nos. 8 and 9. Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate, for non-applicant nos.10 and 11. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present application, the applicant (respondent no. 1 in writ petition) prays for vacating interim order dated 27th November 2007, or in the alternative, it is prayed that the original petitioner and non-applicant nos.10 and 11 be directed not to create any third party interest in the property bearing Gut; No. 30, situated at village Pet (Taluka & District : Latur) . 2. Mr. A.V. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant (respondent no.1 in writ petition), makes a statement that though by an interim order, the respondent no.1 has been restrained from alienating the property which has fallen to her share, the petitioner has already sold the property which had come to his share. (3) 3. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner, accepts the position regarding alienation of part of the property by the petitioner. However, it is submitted that it would be in the interest of justice to hear the matter on merits itself. 4. I find that it would be equitable that during the pendency of the petition, all the parties shall maintain status quo, as on today, and hearing of the petition is expedited. 5. Hence, parties are directed to maintain status quo, as on today, pending hearing and final disposal of Writ Petition No. 3063/2007. The Writ Petition No. 3063/2007 is directed to be posted for hearing after Christmas Vacation of 2009. 6. With the above directions, the Civil Application is disposed of. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/civ9044