1 wp1491.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2011 Mr. Mohan Tatyaba Damkale ...Petitioner v/s. Smt. Mahirunnisa Mard Hamidulla & anr. ...Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 22 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 3. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 25th January, 2011 vide which the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara has extended status-quo till next date. 4. Shri Dilip Bodake, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 wp1491.11.sxw Petitioner submits that the learned trial Court after rejection of Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has no jurisdiction to extend the status-quo. 5. Undisputedly, prior to rejecting of the Application, there was an order of status-quo operating in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. By the impugned order it has been extended for limited period so as to enable the respondent-plaintiff to Appeal against the order. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff makes a categorical statement that the said order dated 25th January, 2011 is operating only till tomorrow i.e. 23rd February, 2011. Since the categorical statement is made that the order dated 25th January, 2011 is operating till tomorrow, I find that no error could be found with the approach of the learned trial Court to have extended the order of status-quo for a limited period so as to enable the respondent-plaintiff to prefer the Appeal. Recourse to under Section 151 of the CPC, in my view, would have permitted the learned trial Court to do so. 6. Since interim protection is operating only till tomorrow, I am not inclined to entertain the Petition. The same is rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)