-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1104 of 2008 Shree Raj Developers and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. Appa Bapu Patil and ors. ..Respondents Ms.Gouri Godse for petitioners. Mr.Jitendra Sachdeo for respondent nos. 1 to 12. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for respondent no.14. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 28th February, 2008 28th February, 2008 28th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the application which was moved for interim injunction before the Trial Court is kept pending, protection is granted only for a limited duration and the protection may come to an end without any fault of the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.11 of 2008. The said suit is filed amongst other against the CIDCO which is defendant no.14 to the same. The application for interim injunction is made on an apprehension that CIDCO may transfer the suit property. The learned Trial Judge to whom the suit was assigned, heard the petitioners on the request of ad-interim status quo/injunction. -2- That request was granted for limited duration in as much as CIDCO appeared and sought time to file reply. The Trial Court directed that the status quo be maintained only till CIDCO files its reply. 2. Ms.Godse submits that such an order gravely prejudices and virtually nonsuits the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court has not given any date for hearing of the injunction application. The injunction application is kept pending. There is no warrant to pass the limited statusquo order and thereafter not take up the hearing of the main application. Thus, for no fault of the petitioner, the proceedings would be frustrated. 3. Shri Kulkarni appearing for CIDCO/original defendant no.14 states that CIDCO has sought time to file reply. 4. At the same time, I am informed that the petitioner has sought leave of the Trial Court for continuation of the ad-interim protection. Since leave to file the reply by CIDCO has not been granted the status quo order is deemed to be continued. That apart, I see no reason why Trial Court is wasting its time in considering -3- all such leave applications. In the peculiar facts of this case and if CIDCO takes its own sweet time to file the reply the petitioners need not go on applying for continuation of the statusquo. Ad-interim order of statusquo in these peculiar facts and circumstances is directed to be continued till application (Exh.5) is decided by the Trial Court. The Trial Court to endeavour and decide the application expeditiously. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. Petition is disposed of. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)