vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6955 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6955 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6955 OF 2008 Surendra Mohanrrao Gudge ... Petitioner V/s. Shree Veershaiv Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for Petitioner Mr.U.R. Mankapure for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 26, 2008 NOVEMBER 26, 2008 NOVEMBER 26, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner has approached this Court contending that the impugned order dated 12.8.2008 passed by the Cooperative appellate Court prejudicially affects it. It is contended that this order was passed without hearing the petitioner who claims to be a bonafide purchaser of the property enlisted at serial No.2 in Schedule A annexed to the dispute application. By the order dated 3.5.2008, the Cooperative Court had restrained the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or creating a charge on the properties described in Schedule A, paragraph 1,3,4 and 5 except for agricultural purposes. Being aggrieved by that order, the respondent bank filed an Appeal from Order before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has restrained the defendants from selling, transferring, : 2 : alienating or creating a charge on all the properties mentioned in Schedule A annexed to the dispute application. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appellate Court could not have included para 2 of Schedule A since the petitioner had purchased the property after the order was passed by the Cooperative Court and before any order was passed by the appellate Court. 3. In my view, rather than remanding the matter to the appellate Court for rehearing the Appeal from Order, it would be appropriate to continue the order of status quo granted by this Court on 13.10.2008 till the trial is complete. Admittedly, the petitioner is now a party to the dispute before the trial Court. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the premises mentioned in para 2 of Schedule A of the dispute application during the trial.