1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1398 OF 2010. Shankar s/o Ambadasrao Gore - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Shaikh Rasool s/o Shaikh Chand and another - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SB Talekar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Adv.holdng for Mr.KM Babhulgaonkar, Advocate for Respondents. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) A chequered history of litigation, flowed between the parties concerning the land forming a part of Survey No. 356(1) situate at Ambejogai District Beed, give rise to the litigation. It is a matter of record, in Special Civil Suit No.83/1998, there was an interim injunction dated 7.1.2000. Misc. Civil Appeal 2 No.7/2000 was preferred by the present respondents, however, it was dismissed by the learned I Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ambejogai by judgment dated 17.1.2005. Special Civil Suit No.83/1998 was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambejogai; it was re-numbered as RCS No. 228/2000. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambejogai, by order dated 31.1.2009 dismissed RCS No.228/2000. Being aggrieved, the present petitioner moved an appeal, being Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2009 and the learned Additional District Judge rejected the application for stay moved below Exhibit-5. 3) Without adverting to the merits about the status of the petitioner/plaintiff to retain the possession of the property, the fact remains there operated an injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner, virtually from 7th January, 2000, in addition to earlier record. The learned Judge, while deciding RCS No.228/2000, while answering the Issue No.4-A, in paragraph 19, has observed that – he has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, still he answered all the other issues and reached to the conclusion of dismissal of the suit. 4) The factual matrix, without further 3 going into its in-depth inquiry, warrant that the learned Additional District Judge, Ambejogai, seized with Regular Civil Appeal No.26/2009, shall endeavour to dispose of the same up to 30th September, 2010. 5) In the situation, the injunction, which was flowing in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, be treated as status quo as on the date of judgment dated 31.1.2009 in RCS No.228/2000. 6) It is clarified, the petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to approach the MSEDCL authorities for restoration of the electricity/energy supply. The authorities, on its own merit, without being influenced by the orders of this Court, shall take appropriate steps in that regard. No opinion expressed on merits of the plaintiff’s case. 7) The Writ Petition disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/wp1398.10