JUDGMENT : A.P. Thaker, J. 1. At the request of learned advocates for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at the admission stage. 2. The petitioner herein is the original defendant, whereas, the respondents herein are the original plaintiffs before the Principal District Court, Bharuch (hereinafter be referred to as "the Appellate Court"). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed below Exhibit 5 dated 07.03.2019 by the learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter be referred to as "the Trial Court") rejecting the application for staying the decree during the pendency of the appeal, petitioner has preferred the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Order 41 Rule X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as per status before the Trial Court i.e. defendant and plaintiffs. 4. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge being Special Civil Suit No. 180 of 2012 for declaration and permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction against the defendant contending that the defendant has put up illegal construction and during the pendency of the suit, the rest of the defendants have joined. It is contended that the defendant has filed the written statement at Exhibit 15 and denied the allegations of the plaintiffs and bring to the notice of the Court to the correct factual aspect of the case as he has never put up any illegal construction. It is his contention that he had made construction after due permission of the Gram Panchayat and he has also given an undertaking to Gram Panchayat, Umraj - defendant No. 4 that he will not construct any wall which would close the air and light of the plaintiffs. It is contended that during the pendency of the suit, the order of status-quo was passed and after evidence of both the sides, the Trial Court has passed the judgment and decree against the defendant No. 1 to remove the construction of car parking within 30 days and if he failed to do so, then, the defendant No. 4 shall do that or the plaintiffs will do the same with the help of the Court. 4.1. 4.1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Trial Court, defendant No. 1 has preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2019 before the District Court and has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule V of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the execution of the judgment and decree till the final disposal of the civil appeal. However, by impugned order, the Appellate Court has rejected the application below Exhibit 5. Against that order, the present petition has been filed the present petition praying to set aside the order of the Appellate Court and to grant status-quo qua the suit property which is subject matter of Regular Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2019 contending various grounds which includes that during the pendency of entire proceedings, the status-quo was in existence in favour of the defendant since more than six years and nothing untoward happened during all these years. It is contended that the first appeal is a continuation of the suit and if the decree passed in the suit is not stayed till the final decision of the appeal then the entire appeal of the defendants would become in-fructuous. It is contended that all the three ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of the defendants and if status-quo is maintained, no prejudice is liable to be caused to plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. 5. On filing of this civil revision application, initially, this court has directed to maintain status-quo. For and on behalf of the opponents No. 1 and 2, opponent No. 1 has filed affidavit-in- reply denying all the three ingredients in favour of the defendants. It is stated that the defendant has made illegal construction even though he was restrained by the Gram Panchayat and during the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court, there was order to maintain status-quo, the defendant has carried out his entire construction which is prima facie illegal. It is stated that after perusal of the entire evidence, the Trial Court has properly directed the defendant to remove the illegal construction. It is stated that the Appellate Court has properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly rejected the interim injunction application below Exhibit 5. It is urged to dismiss the revision application. 6. Heard Mr. It is stated that the Appellate Court has properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly rejected the interim injunction application below Exhibit 5. It is urged to dismiss the revision application. 6. Heard Mr. Kashyap Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar, learned advocate for opponents No. 1 and 2. Perused the material placed on record. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of rest of the opponents. 7. Mr. Kashyap Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of application. While assailing the impugned order of the Appellate Court, he has submitted that throughout the pendency of the suit, the status-quo order was in existence and, therefore, when the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been challenged by way of filing appeal, the order of status-quo ought to have been directed to be maintained by the Appellate Court. It is his submission that if the impugned mandatory injunction is not stayed then very purpose of filing of the appeal will be frustrated. He has submitted that the appeal is yet to be decided on merits. While relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, (1982) 3 SCC 484 , he has submitted that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot permit change taking place during the pendency of the appeal. That judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended more so when the appeal is admitted. He has submitted that by ordering status-quo, appeal be expedited. He has prayed to allow the present civil revision application. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar, learned advocate for opponents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that the defendant has made unauthorized construction during the pendency of the suit. While referring to the documentary evidence, he has submitted that initially, there was order of status-quo passed by the Court below and panchnama was prepared wherein it was shown that the work of construction was going on and during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has completed the construction work. While referring to the documentary evidence, he has submitted that initially, there was order of status-quo passed by the Court below and panchnama was prepared wherein it was shown that the work of construction was going on and during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has completed the construction work. He has submitted that the defendant has flouted the order of the Court regarding the order of maintaining status-quo. He has submitted that though defendant No. 1 was prevented by the Gram Panchayat in making any illegal construction, he has completed the construction. He has submitted that defendant No. 1 has also filed an undertaking and that undertaking has also been breached by defendant No. 1. He has submitted that when defendant No. 1 has flouted the order of the Court, he should not be heard unless and until he complied with the order of the Trial Court of removal of the construction. He has prayed to dismiss the present civil revision application. 9. In rejoinder, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that defendant No. 1 has given undertaking and he has fulfilled that part and even at the filing of the suit, the construction was already completed as per the panchnama itself that the work of slabs was completed on both the floors. He has prayed to allow the present revision application. 10. In the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another (supra), while dealing with somewhat similar situation, the Apex Court has observed that the Court's order cannot be flouted and even a covert disrespect to Court's order cannot be tolerated. But if orders are challenged and the appeals are pending, one cannot be permitted to continuously take place during the pendency of the appeal. It is further observed that the judicial approach requires that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended more so when the appeal is admitted. 11. Now, on perusal of the evidence on record, it is admitted by the defendant himself in his deposition that he has put up the construction in the open land for car parking between two societies and has admitted that the construction was put up by him and he has given an undertaking to the Gram Panchayat to that effect. 11. Now, on perusal of the evidence on record, it is admitted by the defendant himself in his deposition that he has put up the construction in the open land for car parking between two societies and has admitted that the construction was put up by him and he has given an undertaking to the Gram Panchayat to that effect. It also reveals from the record that at the time of preparing panchnama, both the floors were constructed. of course, it appears that during the pendency of the suit, the construction has been completed though there was order of status-quo passed by the Trial Court. As such, defendant No. 1 ought not to have completed the entire construction during the pendency of the suit which fact at the time was incumbent on the part of the plaintiffs to bring to the notice of the Trial Court immediately. That the defendant No. 1 has flouted the order of the Court below. Now, considering the material placed on record, it appears that no such action has been initiated by the plaintiffs against defendant No. 1 during the pendency of the suit. It is an admitted fact that the Trial Court has, on appreciation of the evidence, passed the mandatory injunction against defendant No. 1. Against which, defendant No. 1 has already preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2019 which has been admitted by the Appellate Court. It is also an admitted fact that defendant No. 1 has also moved an application below Exhibit 5 in the appeal for getting order of status-quo till the final disposal of the appeal. The same came to be rejected by the Appellate Court observing that the construction put up by defendant No. 1, it cannot be protected even during the pendency of the appeal. 12. Now, it is an admitted fact that the order of status-quo was granted by the Trial Court, and even at the time of appeal and after discussing the facts by the Appellate Court, is till continued. It is pertinent to note that if the order of status-quo is not granted, then, in that case, there will be execution of the impugned decree, which would effect the very rights of the defendant and his appeal would become in fructuous and the serious consequences will adversely affect the civil right of defendant No. 1. It is pertinent to note that if the order of status-quo is not granted, then, in that case, there will be execution of the impugned decree, which would effect the very rights of the defendant and his appeal would become in fructuous and the serious consequences will adversely affect the civil right of defendant No. 1. At the same time, this Court does not endorse the fact, defendant No. 1 completing the construction during the pendency of the suit. But for that purpose, necessary action under the relevant rules can be initiated against defendant No. 1. But, when he has challenged the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the appeal which is pending before the Appellate Court, in view of the decision in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another (supra), the order of status-quo which is in existence may be continued till final disposal of the civil appeal. At the same time, the certain directions are required to be issued to the Appellate Court to ensure that the appeal may be heard and decided as expeditiously as possible. 13. The present civil revision application is allowed. The status-quo to be maintained qua the disputed construction till the final disposal of the appeal. The Appellate Court is directed to hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order in order to avoid the continuance of boiling situation. The parties and their counsel are directed to cooperate the Appellate Court in deciding and disposing of the appeal in time bound manner. No order as to costs.