: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.855 OF 2009 M/s.Sunil Services ... Appellant V/s. Vishnu Narayan Raut & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.G. Lad for Appellant Mr.A.Y. Sakhare for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.S.J. Chaurasia for Resp. No.5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 5, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order has been filed against the order passed by the City Civil Court on 7.8.2009. By this order, the City Civil Court had made the Notice of Motion absolute. By way of interim relief Defendant No.3 (the appellant herein) was directed not to interfere with and/or obstruct or disturb the possession in any manner of the two outlets situated at Sassoon Dock, Colaba and the business carried out by the plaintiffs. 2. Plaintiff No.4 i.e. the respondent No.4 - Machhimar Sarvoday Sahakari Society Limited is a society formed for the benefit of the fisherfolk. Some concessions were granted to the Society to provide high speed diesel to its members by the Government. Accordingly, the BPCL i.e. Defendant No.1 agreed to provide high speed diesel at a concessional rate to the Society. Since the society did not have an infrastructure to install a tank for storing high speed diesel and outlets/pumps, it was agreed that the outlets and tank would be installed in the petrol : 2 : station which was being run by Defendant No.3 in the Sassoon Dock. Accordingly, it was agreed that some fixed amounts should be paid to Defendant No.3 as service charges for the use of this facility. It appears that the loan agreement which was entered into between the parties came to an end by efflux of time in the year 2006. Thereafter, the agreement has not been renewed as differences had arisen between the parties regarding payment of the aforesaid amount as service charges. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a Suit for an injunction against the defendants and contended that they were entitled to diesel from the tank and the pumps connected to it, allotted to them by the BPCL and which were situated in the premises leased to Defendant No.3. 3. By the impugned order, the trial Court has granted the injunction sought by the plaintiff. However, it appears from a reading of the injunction granted that it is too wide. The learned advocate appearing for the BPCL states that only one tank and two outlets connected to that tank were allotted to the society for dispensing the high speed diesel. Therefore, in my opinion, the trial Court has erred in granting such a wide injunction. The interests of justice would be served by modifying the injunction granted by the trial Court in the following manner: The Defendants shall not interfere with and/or obstruct or disturb the plaintiffs’ possession of pumps C1 and C2 which are connected to tank C as indicated in the rough sketch annexed at exhibit A to the Court Commissioner’s Report dated 12.8.2009. This arrangement will continue during the pendency of the suit. 4. Appeal from Order is disposed of accordingly. 5. Mr.Lad seeks an order of status quo. In my opinion, there is no need to grant such an order since the relief is now modified. : 3 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.993 OF 2009 M/s.Sunil Services ... Appellant V/s. Vishnu Narayan Raut & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.G. Lad for Appellant Mr.A.Y. Sakhare for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 Mr.S.J. Chaurasia for Resp. No.5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 5, 2009 P.C.: 1. By the impugned order, the trial Court has stipulated the manner in which the order passed by it which has been impugned in Appeal No.855 of 2009 should be implemented. 2. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with this order as the Appeal from Order No.855 has already been disposed of by modifying the order of the trial Court. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 3. It is obvious that since the order passed by the trial Court on 17.9.2009 has not been interfered with, the directions therein will be given effect while implementing the trial Court’s order dated 7.8.2009 as modified by this Court in Appeal from Order No.855 of 2009, decided today.