1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7313 OF 2002 Sau.Sarika Sameer Kshatriya and another Petitioners versus Sameer Gajendrasa Kshatriya and others Respondents Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni for petitioners. Mr.Vijay Killedar i/by Nitin Jamdar for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th March 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The first petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. The second petitioner is the daughter. The second respondent is the sister of first respondent and the third respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The marriage between first petitioner and first respondent was solemnized on 4th December 1999. The suit property is described in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The petitioners have claimed that they have a share in the suit property. The allegations have been made by the petitioners that the respondents treated the first petitioner with the acts of cruelty. It is alleged that an attempt was made to dispose of the suit property and, therefore, the suit for perpetual 2 injunction was filed. The application for temporary injunction was made which was rejected by the Trial Court. An appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. It appears from the record that on 8.7.2003 Rule was issued and following interim order was passed :- "Interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause (b) on condition that the Petitioner shall not precipitate the matter and seek to enforce arrest warrant against Respondent No.1 as passed in the maintenance proceedings between the parties." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the suit is still pending. The result of grant of interim relief by this Court in terms of prayer clause (b) is that the respondents have been restrained from transferring and creating third party rights in respect of suit property and they have been directed to maintain status-quo. However, relief has been granted on condition that the petitioners shall not precipitate the matter and seek to enforce the arrest warrant against the first respondent as passed in the maintenance proceedings between the parties. There are various issues raised on merits of the suit and on the maintainability of the suit. Interim order is operating from 8.7.2003 which to some extent protects both the parties. If the legal issues involved in the suit are considered at this stage by this Court, it will cause prejudice to both the parties. As the suit is pending, the same can be ordered to be disposed of within a time bound schedule. Till disposal of the suit, the interim order 3 will have to be continued. 4. Hence, I pass following order :- A) The interim order passed by this Court on 8.7.2003 will continue to operate till disposal of the suit; B) The Trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 31.10.2010; C) All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are expressly kept open; D) Rule is made partly absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)