1 upa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.949 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.949 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.949 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.2219 OF 2000 Dudhnath Kallu Yadav ).. Plaintiff Versus Ramashankar Ramdhar Yadav and others ).. Defendants Mr.Sanjay Udeshi for the Plaintiff. Mr.Y.M. Chaudhari for Defendant No.5. Mr.V.B. Yadav for Defendant Nos.9 to 12. Mr.B.Y. Yadav for Defendant No.14. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 25TH JULY 2006 DATED : 25TH JULY 2006 DATED : 25TH JULY 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Defendant No.5 has taken out the present Motion for deleting the property bearing Survey No.40, Hissa No.8 corresponding to CTS No.44, admeasuring about 1536 sq.yards, situate at Vile Parle, Taluka Andheri, B.S.D. from the Schedule at Exhibit "A" to the Plaint. He has further claimed that order of status quo dated 31st May 2000 be vacated in respect of this property. According to Defendant No.5, he owns the property independently along with Ramdhar Ballu Yadav and, therefore, this property does not form part of the HUF properties. Defendant No.5 has sought deletion of the property from 2 Exhibit "A" to the Plaint. 2. In my view, such a prayer cannot be granted at this stage. The parties have been directed to maintain status quo in respect of all properties. Whether Defendant No.5 owns the aforesaid property independently is an issue which will have to be decided at a later stage. 3. I had suggested that the parties should resolve the dispute by mediation. However, it appears that Defendant Nos.9 to 12 are reluctant to do so. 4. Hence, Notion of Motion dismissed.