: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.273 OF 2009 Hemant Hari Pol deceased thru his LRs .. Appellants V/s. District Rehabilitation Officer, Satara Dhom Division & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Mr. S.S. Pakale i/by Kirankumar Phakade for the appellants Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent No.1 ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The appellants herein instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara being Regular Civil Suit No.620 of 1990 for an injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellants in regard to certain area. Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara by his judgment and decree dated 30 th March, : 2 : 2001 dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants herein filed Regular Civil Appeal No.122 of 2001 in the Court of District Judge-3, Satara. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 7 th April, 2009. Hence, this second appeal. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Pakale on behalf of the appellants. Learned advocate Mr.Pakale states that respondent No.1 has passed an order thereby transferring the land in favour of respondent No.2. According to learned advocate Mr.Pakale, such act of respondent No.1 is illegal and that the appellants want to challenge it before the appropriate Court. He submitted that he would like to file appropriate proceedings. 3. As against this, learned advocate Mrs. Deshmukh appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 supported the impugned judgments and submitted that the second appeal should be dismissed. 4. Having perused the entire record, it is seen that both the Courts have arrived at finding that the : 3 : appellants are in possession of the suit property. However, both the Courts have observed that possession of the appellants are illegal and therefore both the Courts have refused to grant injunction to the appellants. If the appellants are interested in instituting proper proceedings so as to challenge the order passed by respondent No.1, they are free to do so. 5. Having considered the entire judgment, I am inclined to observe that the Courts below have arrived at proper conclusion that the appellants were in possession of the land in question though not lawful. However, if the appellants want to challenge certain orders passed by respondent NO.1, they are free to do so. Hence, the order. ORDER . Second Appeal is dismissed. If the appellants want to challenge certain orders passed by respondent NO.1, the appellants are free to do so. No views are expressed on the merits of that matter. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.) : 4 : Civil Application No.940 of 2009 in Second Appeal No.273 of 2009 The Second Appeal is dismissed. Learned District Judge, Satara had directed the parties to maintain status-quo for a period of 90 days from 7 th April, 2009. The said period of 90 days had already expired. In order to see that no new development takes place and some proceedings which appellants want to file. It is proper that the statu-quo which is prevailing as of today should continue till 31 st July, 2009. . Accordingly it is hereby ordered that status-quo which is prevailing as of today shall continue till 31 st July, 2009. . Civil Application is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.