IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 590 of 2011 Sanjay Amrutrao Gorle ..Vs.. Madhukar M.Bhatkar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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. Chandurkar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.J. Kadu, Adv. for the respondent-sole. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 22 nd August, 2011. Heard. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. An application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed by the plaintiff. The trial court by the order dated 21.10.2010 rejected the application filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction mainly by relying on the report of the Talathi which showed that the defendant was in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff filed Misc. Civil Appeal against the order passed by the trial court on 21.10.2010. The First Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 12.1.2011 reversed the order passed by the trial court and granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner challenges this order in the present writ petition. On 4.2.2011 this court, while issuing notice to the respondent, directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the returnable date. The status-quo is operating as on today. It is necessary to note that since no order of temporary injunction was passed by the trial court, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and since the parties were directed to maintain status-quo by the order dated 4.2.2011, it appears that the order of temporary injunction operated for merely 20 days from the date of the impugned order. The parties are maintaining status- quo in terms of the order dated 4.2.2011. In this background, the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of with a direction to the parties to maintain status-quo and a direction to the trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. Since the pendency of the writ petition would not serve any fruitful purpose and since the parties are directed to maintain status-quo, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the suit and a further direction to the trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the parties would maintain status-quo as on the date of the passing of the impugned order. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan