JUDGMENT : S.D. Shah, J. The petition is the owner of Survey No. 539 at village Vasai, Taluka Dabhoi, who moved an application before Mamlatdar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars Court Act for injunction restraining the respondent opponent from in any way obstructing the flow of water coming to his field through the field of the opponent. It appears that in such proceeding after on the spot investigation, on 31st December, 1991 in the presence of Sarpanch of the village, the Mamlatdar found that the opponent has obstructed the natural flow of water, which has adversely affected the natural irrigation facility to the present petitioner and other persons. He, therefore, by order dated 1st of January 1992, granted temporary injunction in favour of the present petitioner and against the respondent. 2. It appears that being aggrieved by such order, the respondent preferred appeal before Assistant Collector Dabhoi, under Section 23 of the Act, who by his judgment and order dated 16th November, 1992, vacated the order of injunction granted by Mamlatdar. Such order passed in appeal is the subject matter of challenge before this court. 3. After hearing the learned counsel-appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.S. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, B.S. Kapadia, J. on 26th August, 1993, granted order of Status quo under which the flow of water to the field of the petitioner continued. 4. Mr. S.D. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before this Court that proceeding of this nature should be expeditiously heard and perhaps must have been disposed of finally by the Court of Mamlatdar at Dabhoi. He further submitted that even otherwise under the order of status quo granted by this court, the flow of water to the field of petitioner has continued. He, therefore, submitted that the same position should continue till the proceedings before the Court of Mamlatdar, Dabhoi are finally decided and in case they are already decided, the direction of the court would be infructuous. 5. He, therefore, submitted that the same position should continue till the proceedings before the Court of Mamlatdar, Dabhoi are finally decided and in case they are already decided, the direction of the court would be infructuous. 5. In view of the aforesaid position and more particularly in view of the order of learned Single Judge directing the parties to maintain status quo, whereunder the petitioner is enjoying the flow of water from the field of respondent, the very status quo is directed to be maintained and if the proceedings before Mamlatdar, Dabhoi in Case No. 3 of 1991 are yet pending before him, is directed to decide the same expeditiously preferably on or before 31st December, 1995. In case such proceedings are already concluded, the direction issued by this court shall be treated as inoperative. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly.