1 wp10380.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10380 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Jadhavar for petitioner, Mrs. Kulkarni for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. Learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has on 29.10.2010 found it not proper to grant exparte relief and issued notice only and made it returnable on 29.11.2010. That order has been questioned in the present Writ Petition, which is filed on 01.11.2010. This Court on 22.12.2010 directed parties to maintain status- quo and interim orders continues to operate till today. 3. Advocate Mr. Jadhavar for the petitioner states that the petitioner apprehended threat to his possession, and therefore, the interim relief was sought and when it was not granted, the Petition came to be filed. The prayer for 2 wp10380.10 stay is now listed for consideration on 1st March, 2011. He therefore, states that the Petition may kindly be disposed of but with direction to M.R.T. to dispose of the said stay application in time bound fashion. 4. Advocate Mrs. Kulkarni for respondent points out that there is no executable order and therefore, the interim order is not necessary. According to her alleged threat to possession of the petitioner is also an argument in air and there is no question of any such threat involved. She further states that after obtaining the interim orders from this Court the petitioner has delayed the consideration of interim prayer by M.R.T. 5. Learned A.G.P. points out that M.R.T. can dispose of the application for interim relief as early as possible. 6. In this situation, I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the controversy. This Court has only directed to maintain status-quo and hence rival contentions are not prejudiced in any way. Even if there is no executable order, the said direction does not in any way affect the status of the parties. 7. In this situation, I am not inclined to examine the objection of Mrs. Kulkarni about the maintainability of the Writ Petition and the other contentions are left open. 3 wp10380.10 8. The proceedings before the M.R.T. are expedited. The M.R.T. shall hear the respective counsel on prayer for interim order on 1st March, 2011 and shall dispose of the same by 10th March, 2011. 9. With these directions, the present Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 15.02.2011 gas/wp10380.10