(1) CA. 6239.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6239 OF 2004 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 958 OF 2004 Tarabai w/o Ratan Nimrot and others .. Applicants VERSUS Popat S/o Nandram Tatu and others .. Respondents Mr. B.A. Dhengle, Advocate for the applicants/appellants Mr. M.D. Shinde, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 27TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1] The respondents filed the suit saying that the boundary of lands gat no.105 and gat no.20 has been in use of both the parties as a cartway and the appellants should not disturb such user of the boundary. The Courts below held that the respondents could not prove that the boundary was utilised as a cartway but they held that it was used as a pathway. The trial Court clearly held that the respondents-plaintiffs were using the boundary as a pathway and so it permanently injuncted the appellants from obstructing such user of the boundary. When the matter went to the first (2) CA. 6239.2004 appellate Court, I am told the learned Judge directed the parties to maintain status-quo. I am told that the learned Judge of the first appellate Court did not explain as to what the status-quo between the parties was or as he understood. 2] In my view, the finding of the trial Court that the respondents-plaintiffs were in use of the common boundary as a pathway was the status-quo between the parties qua the common boundary. This position was continued during the first appellate stage and the same should now continue till the second appeal is decided. The Application, should therefore fail. The Civil Application stands rejected. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp