(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 387 OF 2011 Abasaheb s/o. Vinayak Lokhande, Aged : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ghugalwadgaon, .. Petitioner Taluka : Shrigonda, (Original defendant District : Ahmednagar. no.3) versus 1. Sahebrao s/o. Vinayak Lokhande, Aged : 49 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Ghugalwadgaon, Taluka : Shrigonda, District : Ahmednagar, now R/o. Laxminagar, Shrigonda, District : Ahmednagar. 2. Vinayak s/o. Bhau Lokhande, Aged : 77 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ghugalwadgaon, Taluka : Shrigonda, District : Ahmednagar. 3. Saraswati Vinayak Lokhande, Aged : 72 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Ghugalwadgaon, Taluka : Shrigonda, District : Ahmednagar. (2) 4. Mirabai Dattatraya Khendke, .. Respondents Aged : 42 years, (No.1 - Original Occupation : Household, plaintiff R/o. Ghugalwadgaon, & Taluka : Shrigonda, Nos.2 to 4 - District : Ahmednagar. Original defendant nos.1, 2 and 4) ....................... Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition. One of the defendants therein has filed subsequent suit contending that he is in exclusive possession of one of the properties included in partition suit. He has also claimed that property as his self- earned property. He applied for temporary injunction to restrain the present petitioner from interfering with his possession and that temporary injunction has been granted. Appeal filed by the present petitioner, against that grant before the learned District (3) Court, is pending. 3. The petitioner moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the question whether suit property is or is not ancestral property is involved in earlier suit filed by them and hence later suit needed to be stayed. The trial court has applied its mind and has found that in later suit, an application for urgent relief was moved and its nature was little different. 4. I find that temporary injunction is already granted to the respondent. That grant is questioned by the present petitioner by filing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met with, by permitting the petitioner to renew his request by moving fresh application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with appropriate documents and pleadings after temporary injunction proceedings are over. 5. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp387