51 WP 4684 OF 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 51 WRIT PETITION NO. 4684 OF 2026 SADANAND SURESH PAWAR AND ANR. VERSUS PANDURANG SAVKAR PAWAR AND ORS. ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Kuldeep Nikam ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 22.09.2026 PER COURT : Heard both sides. 2. The petition is directed against order dated 19.08.2026 passed below Exh. 11 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 103/2026 filed for perpetual injunction against the respondents, who are blood relatives. The respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 15/2023 for partition and possession excluding the present subject matter i.e. land R.S. No. 969/2 (new R.S. No. 579/2), measuring 22.25 Are. Application Exh. 5 for temporary injunction was rejected on 09.07.2026. Being aggrieved, Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026 is preferred. Application Exh. 11 is preferred by the petitioner for interim injunction, which is rejected by the impugned order. 4. It is not disputed that Misc. Appeal No. 51/2026 is awaiting adjudication. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are carrying out construction over the suit land unauthorizedly. It is also 1/3 51 WP 4684 OF 2026.odt pointed out that initially on 05.05.2026 order of status quo was granted. It is contended that even the Municipal Council has taken steps by issuing notices under Section 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. If the construction is continued that would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh has canvassed submissions on above lines. 5. As against that Mr. Nikam appearing for the respondents has adverted my attention to the first written statement filed in earlier suit to indicate the plea taken by the petitioners regarding family arrangement and allotment of the suit land to the respondents and other properties to the petitioners. A subsequent written statement is also pointed out to show that inconsistent stand has been taken and a plea is raised that suit land has not been included in common hotchpot. It is also contended that construction permission is solicited from the competent authority. 6. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, I find it appropriate to direct the Appellate Court to decide Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026 on its own merits, expeditiously. Exh. 11 was filed seeking interim injunction pending Misc. Civil Appeal. The respondents are carrying out the construction, which can be subjected to outcome of the orders of the interim injunction or the suit. It would not be appropriate at this stage of the proceeding to direct the respondents to remove the construction. Their claim for having permission from the competent authority to construct the premises needs to be decided during the course of trial. The purport of the mutation entry No. 14186 also needs to be gone into during the trial. 7. It reveals from record that the Trial Court had granted status quo on 05.05.2026, which was continued vide order dated 09.07.2026, passed below Exh. 48. While rejecting application Exh. 5, the status quo was in operation. It was continued by the Appellate Court also vide order dated 14.08.2026. After rejection of application Exh. 11, the parties were directed 2/3 51 WP 4684 OF 2026.odt to maintain status quo till appeal period is over vide order dated 20.08.2026. It would be appropriate to continue the order of status quo. 8. For the reasons stated above, I pass following order : ORDER (I) The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Court -District Judge 1 Vita District Sangali to decide Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026 within a period of four months from today, on its own merits, without being influenced by orders of status-quo. (II) Parties shall maintain status quo till the decision of the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026 pending before the Appellate Court. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 3/3