MORRIES HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KUMBLA ABDULLA MERCHANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri A. Kakodkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri M. Amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

(2.) SHRI S.S. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel seeks leave to delete respondent no.2 from the cause title. Request granted. Respondent No.2 stands deleted at the risk of the petitioner.

(3.) SHRI Kantak, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that this Court by an order dated 27/04/2010 while disposing of Writ Petition No.191/2010 had inter alia directed at clause 'c' of the said order that all contentions of the parties are kept open, and the parties undertake to maintain status quo as of today till the application for temporary injunction is decided. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the appeal preferred before the lower Appellate Court challenging the orders on the application filed by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint came to be allowed, the lower Appellate Court set aside the said judgment and remanded the matter to the learned trial Judge to decide the suit on merits. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that once the suit was remanded for fresh decision, orders passed in the temporary injunction application by this Court came to be revived and, as such, the question of passing any directions to restrain the appellants not to dispossess the respondent no.1 would not arise. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the impugned order is in excess of its jurisdiction and, as such, this Court has to set aside the impugned order in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the material on record and pointed out that according to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 is not in possession of the suit premises. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the petitioners have not changed the status quo at the site and, as such, the question of passing the impugned order by the lower Appellate Court would not arise.