1 8 caf.2148.09 ndm FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2148 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 800 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. A.J.Almeida for the Applicant. Mr. Rajendra G. Megh for Respondent Nos.2 to 6. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13 th September, 2011. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant as well as the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 6. 2 During the pendency of the suit, a Court Commissioner was appointed for local investigation. On 22 nd March, 1998, ad-interim order was passed by the trial Court directing the parties to maintain status- quo in terms of the report of the Court Commissioner. It appears that the said ad-interim order continued till the disposal of the suit as it was not vacated. 2 8 caf.2148.09 3 The Applicant is the original Plaintiff. The suit was filed by the Applicant for injunction. The Applicant alongwith Respondent No.7 claimed to be the legal representatives of the original owner. 4 This application for temporary injunction opposed by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 6. He submits that from the date of the decree i.e. from 24 th August, 2004, there was no ad-interim relief operating in favour of the Applicant. He submitted that categorical finding of the trial Court is that the Applicant has failed to prove his possession and therefore, he is not entitled to any injunction. 5 Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court shows that there is no finding recorded that even the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 have established their exclusive possession. In paragraph No.5 of the judgment, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the Applicant has failed to prove his exclusive possession. Some observations have been made in the said paragraph that the parties were in joint possession. It appears to me that what is stated in the 3 8 caf.2148.09 Commissioner’s report was not disputed. Looking to the peculiar findings recorded by the trial Court, a limited interim relief deserves to be granted. 6 Hence, I pass the following order: i. Till the disposal of the appeal, the parties to the appeal shall maintain status-quo in terms of the report of the Court Commissioner, which is on record of the trial Court ; ii. Civil Application is disposed of on above terms. [ A.S.OKA, J ]