1 WP 3926.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3926 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs.M.D.Thube-Mhase, Advocate for Resp. 1 to 7. ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioners, who are original plaintiffs, filed Suit for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession in respect of property Nos. 335,309 (new No. 303), 268 and 256. Along with the Suit, the petitioners also filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction. The respondent preferred Appeal. The appellate Court allowed the Appeal and rejected the application ( Exh. 5 ), which was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Mr. S.S.Jadhavar, the learned counsel for 2 WP 3926.2011 the petitioners submits that the respondents are engaged in obstructing the possession of the petitioners over the suit house and are trying to demolish the same after the measurements are carried out. According to the learned counsel, the acts of commission on the part of the respondents are required to be prevented. The learned counsel submits that the land of the respondent is adjucent to the suit houses, as G.No. 2 is situated on the northern side of the suit houses. 3. Mrs. Thube, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the houses of the petitioners are not in land G.No. 2 and the petitioners have no concern with the land G.No. 2. The respondents are not obstructing the possession of the petitioners over their houses. In such circumstances, the lower appellate court has properly viewed the matter. The learned counsel further submits that plaintiff no. 4 Sindhubai has already withdrawn the Suit. 4. It seems that the plaintiffs are not concerned with land G.No. 2, so also, the defendants are not concerned with the suit house owned by the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, as a matter of fact, there can not be any dispute regarding the house properties. The lower appellate Court has 3 WP 3926.2011 reproduced the observations of the trial Court in para no. 9 of the Judgment. 5. Taking into account the above dispute, the parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of house property Nos. 335,309 (new No. 303) and 268. 6. The trial Court shall endeavour to decide the Suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of one ( 1 ) year. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3926.2011