(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2977 OF 2011 Sow. Jadawbai w/o. Mishrimal Lalwani, deceased through her legal heir, Chandanmal s/o. Mishrimal Lalwani, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Near Jyoti Vastra Bhandar, .. Petitioner Nandurbar, Dist. : Nandurbar. (Original plaintiff) versus Mangilal s/o. Mishrimal Bafna @ Hastimal @ Mangilal Pratapmal Bafna, deceased through his legal heirs - Smt. Gillidevi @ Shanta Mangilal Bafna, etc., .. Respondents and others. (Original defendants) ....................... Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.V. Natu, for the petitioner / original plaintiff. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-3-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandurbar, below Exhibit 575 in Special Civil Suit No. 56/1990. 3. In a suit filed in the year 1990, application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC was moved vide Exhibit 575, alleging subsequent transfers during pendency of the suit. Similarly, the other application at Exhibit 577 was filed to restrain defendants from transferring suit property or creating any third party interest in it during pendency of the suit. By separate orders passed on the same day, trial court has rejected those prayers. 4. Relevant case law cited before the trial court has been looked into and the trial court has found that provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act were sufficient to protect interest of the petitioner / plaintiff. It is not in dispute that temporary injunction on the same lines was rejected earlier. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. (3) 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2977