IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3792 of 2011 Abdul Rehman Abdul Sattar ..Vs.. Smt. Rukhmabai Narayan Tayade and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S.Mardikar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. A. V. Bhide, Adf. for the respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 30 t h August, 2011. Heard. The trial court has granted injunction in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff restraining the defendants/ respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The first appellate court, by the impugned order dated 12.7.2011, reversed the order passed by the trial court and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to grant of temporary injunction. The first appellate court held that the respondents had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the respondents. Both the parties had claimed that they were in possession of the suit property on the date of institution of the suit. Similarly, both the learned counsel for the parties state that their client is in possession of the suit property today also. Hence, there is a serious dispute as to who is in possession of the suit property. Since the pendency of the writ petition would not sub-serve any purpose, the learned counsel for the parties agree that the parties would maintain status-quo as regards possession during the pendency of the suit and this court may direct the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties to maintain status-quo as regards possession and a further direction to the trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan