1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5179/2009. ( Nirmala Shankarlal Jaiswal and others -: versus :- Bharatlal Mohanlal Jaiswal and another ) 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 : JANUARY 05, 2010. Heard Shri S. Rao, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri S.A. Deole, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner has not placed on record/annexed the order of S.D.O., dated 03.02.2009 granting status quo, though he has mentioned it as Annexure and described it accordingly in the list of annexures. By the said order dated 03.02.2009, status quo was directed to be maintained, in view of the Regular Civil Appeal preferred by the petitioners before the District Court. That order was vacated on 01.10.2009 by the S.D.O. Ramtek behind the back of the petitioner. Shri Rao, learned counsel fairly does not dispute that Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment in Regular Civil Appeal is also dismissed by this Court. He however, makes a grievance that, when status quo was vacated by the S.D.O., date was not communicated to 2 the petitioners and behind their back the order have been passed. After hearing the parties, it appears that date scheduled in proceedings before S.D.O., was little later and by pre-poning and without any intimation to petitioners on 01.10.2009 impugned order came to be passed. It is apparent that, the S.D.O. could not have done so. However, as Second Appeal filed by the petitioners is also dismissed by this Court later on, it is apparent that the issue has become only academic in the present matter. Learned A.G.P. to communicate the observations of this Court to the respondent no.3 S.D.O.Ramtek. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.