Shri. Prashant S. Lambe And ORS. v. The Sub Divisional Office And ORS.

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 6568 OF 2015 __________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, Appearances, Court's or Court's or Judge's orders directions and Registrar's orders.

____________________________________________________________________ Ms. Madhavi Tavanandi for Petitioner.

Mr. A. R. Metkari AGP for Respondent No. 1.

CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 ****** P.C.:

1] Not on board. Upon production, taken on board.

2] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

This petition challenges the order dated 23.02.2015 whereby the SDO has made a status­quo order pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal.

3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue which is raised before the appellate authority is one which is already decided by this Court.

4] Further, the learned

Counsel for the petitioner states that on the basis of such status­quo order, the appellant before the Sub­Divisional Officer may proceed to dispose of the suit property.

5] Considering that the impugned order is only an interim order which is to operate during the pendency of the appeal, there is no reason to exercise extra­ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

If the matter is already covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3486/2014 and Writ Petition No. 72/2014, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, then it is for the petitioner to point out this aspect before the appellate authority, at the stage of final hearing of the appeal.

6] There is really no basis for the apprehensions exercised by the petitioner that on the basis of the interim

order, the appellant before the Sub­Divisional Officer may proceed to dispose of the suit property and create any third party rights therein.

The status­quo order, would equally apply to both the appellant as well as the respondent before the Sub­Divisional Officer. In any case, this aspect is hereby clarified. This Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and therefore, all contentions of all parties are kept open.

7] The appeal Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as, expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of 6 months from the date of production of authenticated copy of this order.

8] Parties to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.

(M.S. SONAK, J.)

CERTIFICATE Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.