( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6447 OF 2008 Baburao Vishwanath Swami and another. PETITIONERS VERSUS Malanbee Sattarsaheb Karanmare and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaddime, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, advocate for respondent No. 4. None for other respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 17th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 26-06-2008 whereby the learned Adhoc District Judge dismissed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 78/2006. 2. It appears that the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed suit (R.C.S. No. 25/1989) seeking partition and separate possession of two (2) agricultural lands ( 2 ) bearing Gat Nos. 467 and 471 alongwith house property. The suit was decreed. The present petitioners were the original defendants No. 4 and 5 in that suit. They are purchasers of a part of the suit property. They preferred an appeal (R.C.A. No. 182/1997). Their appeal was partly allowed. It was directed that while effecting the partition of the agricultural lands, the portion of the land gat No. 467 to the extent of 1 hectare 22 Ares shall be allotted to the share of the vendor of the appellants, namely, original defendant No. 2. 3. The decree for partition and separate possession was executed before the petitioners could file an application for appropriate execution of the decree. The petitioners submitted an application (Exh-26) for appointment of Court Receiver under Order XL Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code. They submitted that in the agricultural land gat No. 467, the respondents No. 1 to 3 were digging a part of the property purchased by them. They further submitted that the respondents No. 1 to 3 were making undue haste to ( 3 ) raise construction in the said disputed portion. Consequently, they urged that by appointment of Court Commissioner, the part of the land gat No. 467 to the extent of 1 hectare 22 Ares area may be taken into possession. The application came to be rejected. The appeal preferred by the petitioners also came to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Though served, the respondent No.3 did not appear. None appeared for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 5 when the petition was called out for hearing. 5. Mr. C.R. Deshpande would submit that he does not press into service the prayer for appointment of Court Receiver as such. Still, he would urge to restrain the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 from causing any change in the suit land by digging, removing of earth and making construction of any part thereof. The question regarding executability of the of the decree and the restitution of the possession is pending before ( 4 ) the executing Court. It is necessary, therefore, to maintain status quo position in respect of the land gat No. 467. The question whether a particular portion could be allotted to the share of the vendor of the petitioners also is required to be gone into and the application filed by the petitioners is yet undecided. Considering these aspects of the matter, the relevant can be moulded. 6. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to maintain status quo position in respect of land gat No. 467 until the application filed by the petitioners before the executing Court is decided on merits. They shall not raise any construction, nor shall dig any part of the said land or remove earth and cause change in the present position of the said land. The impugned order is partly modified in above terms. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP6447-08 ( 5 )