JUDGMENT : DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J. 1. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties, this matter has been taken up for final disposal. 2. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr. Monal Chaglani waives service of notice of rule for respondent. 3. By filing instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provision of the Order 41, Rule 5 and under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.01.2023 passed below application, Exh.5 by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2023 (Annexure-A) and thereby prayed for relief as prayed in Paragraph No.7(1) of the application, Exh.5 in Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2023. 4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under, 4.1 The dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No.62 admeasuring 2 Acre 30 Guntha situated in the sim of Village : Rampara, Taluka : Una, District : Gir-Somnath, which is known as “Dhedhiyu” (hereinafter referred to as “the land in question”. The aforesaid land was ancestral land, which came into the share of the husband of the petitioner no.1.1 and father of the petitioner nos.1.2 to 1.10 viz., Bavaji Hiragar Motigar (the deceased). 4.2 However as the respondent was trying to disturb the possession of the suit land, the deceased filed Regular Civil Suit No.91/1996 before the court of the learned Civil Judge, Una inter alia praying for permanent injunction on 20.06.1996. Along with the said plaint, an application for injunction, Exh.5 was also preferred. The notice was issued, which was duly served upon the respondent – original defendants and in pursuance thereto, they have appeared through advocate. 4.3 On 20.06.1996, the learned Civil Judge, Una granted ad-interim relief and directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question. 4.4 Thereafter on 31.01.1997, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Una allowed the application, Exh.5 and granted injunction and thereby directed the respondent – original defendant, his family members, servants and/or agents not to enter into the land in question and also directed not to create any hindrance to the petitioner and his family members while doing agriculture work. 4.5 Against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred Civil Misc. 4.5 Against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred Civil Misc. Application No.31/1997 before the learned District Court, Junagadh and the learned District Judge partly allowed the said application by an order dated 24.04.1997 and thereby partly modified the order dated 31.01.1997 passed below injunction application, Exh.5, whereby it is ordered that for the half area of the land bearing Survey No.62 admeasuring 1 Acre and 30 Guntha, the original defendant shall not obstruct the possession of northern 4 bigha of land of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is also directed to maintain status quo in respect of defendant’s possession of half of the area of the land pending suit before the learned civil court. 4.6 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the deceased approached this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5715/2004 and after hearing the parties, this Hon’ble Court, by an order dated 21.06.2004, partly allowed the said writ petition and thereby quashed and set aside the order dated 24.04.1997 passed by the learned District Judge directing the petitioner – original plaintiff to maintain status quo in respect of the respondent – original defendant’s possession of half of the area of the land bearing Survey No.62 admeasuring 2 Acres and 30 Guntha and also directed the learned civil court to hear and dispose of the suit within three months from the receipt of the said order. It is required to be noted that the aforesaid order was carried further before the higher forum but it has attained finality. 4.7 Thereafter pending suit, the deceased, Bavaji Hiragar Motigar passed away and, hence, their heirs were brought on record. 4.8 Thereafter the suit was proceeded further and ultimately by judgment and decree dated 09.02.2015, the learned Additional Civil Judge, Una rejected the suit of the plaintiffs. 4.9 On the very same day, an application, Exh.199 was preferred to stay the aforesaid judgment and decree for 30 days and also prayed for extension of an order of injunction so as to approach the higher forum and by an order dated 09.02.2015, the application, Exh.199 was allowed and extended the injunction till 11.03.2015. 4.9 On the very same day, an application, Exh.199 was preferred to stay the aforesaid judgment and decree for 30 days and also prayed for extension of an order of injunction so as to approach the higher forum and by an order dated 09.02.2015, the application, Exh.199 was allowed and extended the injunction till 11.03.2015. 4.10 Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.6/2015 before the learned District Court, Una, where after considering the facts of the case, the learned 6th Additional District Judge, Una, by judgment and order dated 29.03.2016, partly allowed the said appeal and quashed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2015 and remanded the matter back to the learned civil court for deciding afresh framing an additional issue. 4.11 Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the suit was restored, however by judgment and order dated 17.12.2022, the learned Additional Civil Judge, Una dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 4.12 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioners preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2023 before the learned District Court, Una. Along with the said appeal, an application, Exh.5 under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was also preferred seeing stay of the judgment and order and to continue the order of injunction. 4.13 Pending an application, Exh.5, an application, Exh.8 was also preferred on 23.01.2023 inter alia praying for direction to maintain status quo of the land in question till the application, Exh.5 is decided. On the said application, Exh.8, learned advocate for the respondent has also made an endorsement to the effect that he has no objection if the prayer as prayed in Paragraph No.7(1) of the application, Exh.5 is granted. On the said application, Exh.8, learned advocate for the respondent has also made an endorsement to the effect that he has no objection if the prayer as prayed in Paragraph No.7(1) of the application, Exh.5 is granted. 4.14 Not only that, by filing purshis dated 23.01.2023 at Exh.9, learned advocate for the respondent stated that he has no objection if the injunction is to be granted as per the order dated 21.06.2004 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Special Civil Application No.5715/2004 4.15 However to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioners, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Una by an order dated 23.01.2023, allowed the application, Exh.5 and directed both the parties to maintain status quo of the land in question till final disposal of the appeal and so far as the possession of the land bearing Survey No.62 is concerned, the petitioners are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the respondent – original defendant’s possession of half area of the land bearing Survey No.61. Hence, this petition. 5. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Bhaumik Dholariya for the petitioners and learned advocate, Mr. Monal Changlani for the respondent. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Dholariya for the petitioners submitted that as can be seen from the facts narrated hereinabove, it is found out that the matter has chequered history and this is the second round of litigation before this Hon’ble Court. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioners are the heirs of Bavaji Hiragar Motigar, who had filed suit before the learned civil court for declaration and permanent injunction and pending said suit, the said Bavaji Hiragar Motigar passed away and, hence, the petitioners being legal heirs were brought on record. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioners are the heirs of Bavaji Hiragar Motigar, who had filed suit before the learned civil court for declaration and permanent injunction and pending said suit, the said Bavaji Hiragar Motigar passed away and, hence, the petitioners being legal heirs were brought on record. Learned advocate submitted that along with the suit, an application for injunction, Exh.5 was also filed, which was considered by the learned civil court by directing the defendant, his family members, servants and/or agents not to enter into the land in question and not to create any hindrance to the petitioner and his family members while doing agriculture work, however, the said order was assailed before the learned District Court, who modified the order with a direction that for the half area of the land bearing Survey No.62 admeasuring 1 Acre and 30 Guntha, the original defendant shall not obstruct the possession of northern 4 bigha of land of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is also directed to maintain status quo in respect of defendant’s possession of half of the area of the land pending suit before the learned civil court, against which, the petitioners had approached this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.5715/2004 and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court has quashed and set aside the order of learned District Judge passed in Civil Misc. Application and thereby upheld the order of learned Civil Judge passed below injunction application, Exh.5. Application and thereby upheld the order of learned Civil Judge passed below injunction application, Exh.5. Learned advocate submitted that thereafter the suit was proceeded further and ultimately at the end of day, the said suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, therefore, appeal was preferred before the learned District Court, who remanded the matter back to the learned Civil Court and pursuant to the said order, the suit was restored and it was again heard, however once again, it was dismissed, against which, Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2023 was preferred before the learned District Court along with an injunction application, Exh.5 and pending said injunction application, an application, Exh.8 was also preferred to grant stay pending injunction application and on the said application, an endorsement was made by learned advocate for the original defendant to consider the said application and not only that, purshis, Exh.9 was also submitted stating that he has no objection if the injunction is to be considered and the application is decided as per the order dated 21.06.2004 passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, however despite such fact, the impugned order came to be passed directing both the parties to maintain status quo of the land in question till final disposal of the appeal and so far as the possession of the land bearing Survey No.62 is concerned, the petitioners are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the respondent – original defendant’s possession of half area of the land bearing Survey No.61. Learned advocate submitted that it is found out from the facts of the case that there is dispute with regard to the ownership of the land, for which, civil litigation are going on, therefore, the learned District Judge ought to have granted status quo as ordered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, on the application, Exh.8, learned advocate for the original defendant has made an endorsement to the effect that if the relief as prayed for in Paragraph No.7(1) of the injunction application, Exh.5 is to be granted, in that event, he has no objection. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, on the application, Exh.8, learned advocate for the original defendant has made an endorsement to the effect that if the relief as prayed for in Paragraph No.7(1) of the injunction application, Exh.5 is to be granted, in that event, he has no objection. Learned advocate submitted that not only that, by submitting purshis, Exh.9, learned advocate for the original defendant has also given consent for passing an order as per order dated 21.06.2004 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5715/2004. Learned advocate, however, submitted that despite the fact that learned advocate for the original defendant had extended broad consensus in writing, the learned Appellate Court has passed impugned order, which is vitally affecting the rights of the petitioners and quite contrary to the view adopted by this Hon’ble Court in aforesaid writ petition. Learned advocate submitted that when the Coordinate Bench of this Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Court in earlier round of litigation and restored the order of learned civil court, in that event, there was no reason for the learned Appellate Court to pass same order, which was passed by the learned Appellate Court at earlier point of time. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Chaglani has opposed the present petition with a vehemence and submitted that learned Appellate Court has not committed any error, which would call for any interference in the present petition at the hands of this Hon’ble Court. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the dispute pertains to ancestral property, which was originally admeasuring 7 vigha and at the relevant point of time, suit was filed by the petitioner – original plaintiff in the year 1981 inter alia claiming for 4 Vigha’s of land, wherein in the year 1983, settlement took place and on the strength of it, consent decree was passed, whereby partition had taken place and since then, he was in possession of the said parcel of land, whereas the original defendants were the owner and occupant and in possession of the rest of the parcel of land. Not only that, there was criminal complaint filed against the petitioner. Learned advocate further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration all the facts of the case and passed impugned order. Not only that, there was criminal complaint filed against the petitioner. Learned advocate further submitted that the learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration all the facts of the case and passed impugned order. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the impugned order is dated 21.01.2023 and the present petition is filed in the month of July, 2023 and in between, the respondent – original defendant has submitted an application for implementation of the order, which was considered by the learned court below, due to which, the present petition has been filed and thus, there is delay and laches in pursuing the matter. Learned advocate has not disputed the endorsement made by learned advocate for the defendant before the learned Appellate Court on the application, Exh.9 as also submission of purshis, Exh.9. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may not be entertained. 8. Learned advocate has not disputed the endorsement made by learned advocate for the defendant before the learned Appellate Court on the application, Exh.9 as also submission of purshis, Exh.9. It is, therefore, urged that the present petition may not be entertained. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material and evidence available on record including the impugned orders, it is found out that the original plaintiff has filed suit, initially an order of status quo was granted and, thereafter, injunction application, Exh.5 was allowed as prayed for and thereby both the parties were directed to maintain status quo, however, the aforesaid order was assailed by the original defendant before the learned Appellate Court by filing appeal, where the aforesaid order was modified and thereby the petitioners – original plaintiffs were directed to maintain status quo in respect of defendant’s possession of half of the area of the land pending suit before the learned civil court, against which, writ petition was filed before this Hon’ble Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Court and confirmed the order passed by the learned Civil Court and, thereafter, the suit was proceeded further and it has been dismissed and the original plaintiffs have approached the learned Appellate Court by filing appeal, where the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration and, therefore, the suit was restored and reheard by the learned Civil Court and ultimately, it was dismissed, against which, appeal has been preferred challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Court along with an application for injunction, Exh.5, however pending said application, an application, Exh.8 was filed seeking injunction pending injunction application, Exh.8, wherein learned advocate for the original plaintiff made endorsement that if the relief as prayed for in Paragraph No.7(1) of the injunction application, Exh.5 is granted, in that even, he has no objection and, thereafter, purshis, Exh.9 has also been submitted before the learned Appellate Court and thereby consent has been given to the effect that the injunction be granted as per order 21.06.2004 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5715/2004, however, the learned Appellate Court has passed an order, which was earlier passed while passing an order dated 24.04.1997, whereby the application, Exh.5 has been allowed and both the parties are directed to maintain status quo of the land in question till final disposal of the appeal and so far as the possession of the land bearing Survey No.62 is concerned, the petitioners are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the respondent – original defendant’s possession of half area of the land bearing Survey No.61 and the said order is assailed in the present petition. 9. At this stage, I would like to reproduce the order dated 21.06.2004 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5715/2004, which reads as under, “5. In the result, this petition deserves to be partly allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 24th April, 1997 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 31 of 1997 passed by the District Judge, Junagadh is hereby quashed and set aside in so far as it directs the petitioner-plaintiff to maintain status quo in respect of the respondent-original defendant’s possession of half the area of the land bearing survey no. 62, admeasuring 2 acres and 30 gunthas. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Una is hereby directed to hear and decide Regular Civil Suit No. 91 of 1996 as early as possible and practicable and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ from this Court. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.” 10. From from the above, it is clear that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier round of litigation has modified the order of the learned Appellate Court and thereby confirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge, by which, an order of status quo qua land in question has been passed and the said order was in existence till the impugned order is passed. It is, however, required to be noted that because of the modification in the order of status quo, resultant effect was multiplicity of proceeding. Further, it is found out from the purshis, Exh.9 submitted by learned advocate for the original defendant before the learned Appellate Court that if the injunction is granted as per the order dated 21.06.2004 passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioners being Special Civil Application No.5715/2004, the defendant has no objection. I have also scrutinized and examined both aforesaid documents. Not only that, the suit was filed in the year 1996 and we are in the year 2024 and for all those years, the status quo with regard to the land in question was in existence, which in my considered opinion, deserves to be granted. Therefore considering the above facts of the case, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Therefore considering the above facts of the case, the present petition deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The the order dated 23.01.2023 passed below application, Exh.5 by the learned Additional District Judge, Una in Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2023 (Annexure-A) is hereby quashed and set aside. Both the parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question till final hearing and disposal of Regular Civil Appeal No.1/2023 pending before the court of the learned District Court, Una. 12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.