1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 314 of 2010 PETITIONER : Ravi S/o Harikishan Gahlot, Aged about 37 years, Occu. Service, R/o Arvi, Tah. Arvi, Dist. Wardha. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1] Harikishan S/o Badridasji Gahlot, Aged about nil, Occu. Tea Canteen, 2] Sou. Kamlabai W/o Harikishan Gahlot, Aged about nil, Occu. Household, 3] Sou. Rakhi W/o Sanjaykumar Toksiya, Aged about nil, Occu. Household, 4] Sou. Rachana W/o Manojkumar Bandhu, Aged nil, Occu. Household. All R/o Arvi, Tah. Arvi, Dist. WArdha 5] The Administrator of Jiwan Vikas Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Arvi, Tah. Arvi, Dist. Wardha. 6] Laxmikant Ramshankar Pandey, Aged about 46 years, Occu. Service, Recovery and Sales Officer, Jiwan Vikas Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Arvi, Tah. Arvi, Dist. Wardha. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 18, 2010. Heard finally learned Advocate Mr. M.D.Lakhey for the petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. K.R.Lule for the 2 respondent no.6. Mr. T.R.Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.5. Admittedly, the suit property has come to respondent no.1 Harikishan in 1985 partition. The present petitioner, who has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 2009, is aged about 37 years and therefore, was about 12-13 years on the date of partition. It is apparent that he was/is co-parcener along with defendant no.1. The said petitioner has filed suit for partition against his father (respondent no.1) and in it, he sought temporary injunction to restrain respondent nos.5 and 6 from proceeding further with recovery against the suit property. The learned trial court has rejected that application on 14.5.2009 by holding that after partition, the property became exclusive and absolute property of Harikishan. The learned lower appellate court has also partially accepted this contention. It is apparent that as petitioner (plaintiff) was about 12-13 years of age in 1985, he has share in the property, which is received by his father (present respondent no.1). The said share, therefore, cannot be allowed to be proceeded against, except in accordance with law. The courts below have not considered said aspect at all. The impugned order dated 14.5.2009, passed below Exh.5 by learned trial court and in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 25/2009 by the learned Principal District Judge, Wardha, are therefore, quashed and set aside. Respondents no.5 and 6 are permitted to proceed further against the suit property in so far as share of defendant no.1 (respondent no.1) therein is 3 concerned. The parties are at liberty to move the trial court for expeditious disposal of Regular Civil Suwqit No. 21 of 2009. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale