1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 115 OF 2009 Pralhad Yeshwantrao Paithankar, R/o. Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Appellant. Versus Rukminibai w/o. Yeshwantrao Paithankar, R/o. Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Respondent. Shri. K.K.Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 11th November, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff, who had filed the Regular Civil Suit No. 193/1994 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur for declaration of ownership with respect to house property having C.T.S. No. 1156 admeasuring 159.5 Sq. Mtrs. situated at Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. The respondent herein was the defendant in the said suit and she also filed counter claim for partition and separate possession. 2 2. The trial Court by his judgment and decree dated 2nd of May 2002 decreed the suit as well as the counter claim. The plaintiff was declared as owner of the suit property to the extent of half share and the defendant was held entitled to have partition and separate possession of the suit property to the extent of her half share in the suit property. 3. The respondent defendant filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 92/2002 in the court of District Judge at Osmanabad. Along with the appeal, she filed an application, Exh. 25, praying that the appellant, his father or anybody claiming through him, should be restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondent over the suit property. The learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Osmanabad allowed the said application and passed an order below Exh. 25 on 20.7.2009, restraining the respondent/plaintiff, his father or his relative from obstructing the possession of the appellant/defendant over the suit house bearing C.T.S.No. 1156, admeasuring 159.5 Sq. Mtrs. situated at Tuljapur, till the final decision of the appeal. The appellate Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of half share and he is residing in the half share of the suit house and in order to protect the interest and possession of the respondent/defendant over the suit property, the appellate Court has granted an injunction. 3. This appeal was admitted on 22.9.2009 and the parties were put on notice that the matter will be heard finally. None appears for the 3 respondent although the respondent is served. 4. Shri. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicant states that the defendant is not being obstructed either from entering or remaining in possession of her share in the suit property. He further states that the respondent shall also not be obstructed in future so far as her possession over the property, which has fallen to her share. It is apparent that the respondent is also in possession of the half portion of the suit house. In view of this, the parties shall maintain statusquo pending the decision of the Regular Civil Appeal No. 92/2002. 5. In the result, the instant appeal is allowed. The order dated 20.7.2009 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Osmanabad below Exh. 25 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 92/2002, is quashed and set aside. The parties are directed to maintain the statusquo in respect of the possession over their respective share in the suit property. This order shall continue, pending the decision of the Regular Civil Appeal No. 92/2002. No order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/ao115.09