FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10753 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Heard. 2 This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17th August, 2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Gangakhed in M.C.A. NO.14/2006. The operative part of the said judgment reads thus: “The appeal MCA No.14/2006 is hereby allowed. The order of the trial Court on Exh.5 dated 16.10.06 in case No.226/06 by Civil Judge J.D. Gangakhed is hereby set aside. The counter application by defendant no.1 is hereby allowed. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo so far as possession is concerned till decision of suit. Both the parties to bear their own costs.” 3 Relying on the operative part of the judgment, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents herein are interpreting the status quo order as if they are in possession and disturbing possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is in settled possession of the suit property and the status quo order is causing confusion between the parties and as a result, the respondents are disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner. 4 The Counsel for the petitioner further submits that if this Court is not convinced in interfering with the impugned order, in that case, at least the trial Court may be directed to dispose of the suit within six months from today. 5 Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is clear that the said order is passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner came to be allowed. The order of the trial Court was set aside and the appellate Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo so far as possession of the suit property is concerned. In my opinion, the appellate court has struck the balance and directed the parties to maintain status quo as to the possession of the suit property. Possible view has been taken by the appellate Court. Therefore, in my opinion, no different view can be taken in the matter than the one taken by the appellate Court. Even assuming for a moment that second view is possible that is not a ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The prayer of the petitioner to upset the order in MCA stands rejected. However, so far as the prayer of the petitioner to direct the concerned court to dispose of the suit within six months is concerned, it is not possible for this Court to bind the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a particular period since this Court is not aware of the pendency before that Court and, therefore, the direction sought by the petitioner cannot be given in the present petition. However, it can be observed that the trial Court, if otherwise possible, can dispose of the R.C.S. NO. 226/2006, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within one year from today. With these observations, writ petition stands dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 01.12.2010. PLK/*