1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application (CAF) No.978 of 2011 In First Appeal No.335 of 2011 (Radheshyam s/o Gaurishankar Shukla v. Shivendrakumar s/o udaramji Paliwal and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for Applicant/Appellant. Shri K.R. Lule, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2-E and 2-G. Ms Varsha Vasu, Advocate for Respondent No.2-F. Shri D.B. Patel, AGP for Respondent No.3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 18 th November, 2011 The first appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 22-12-2010 dismissing Special Civil Suit No.89 of 2002 filed by the applicant/appellant. It was the suit for declaration of ownership of the suit property and further declaration that the sale-deed dated 31-12-1991 executed by the respondent/defendant No.4 in favour of the respondents/defendants No.1 and 2 was null and void and inoperative. The permanent injunction was also sought for. It is not in dispute that the appellant is in possession of the suit property. The defence is raised that in a suit for recovery 2 of possession filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the decree was passed directing the present appellant to deliver the possession of the suit property. This was the subject-matter of challenge in Civil Revision Application No.588 of 2001, which was disposed of by this Court on 1-10-2002 by giving liberty to the appellants to file a suit for declaration of ownership/title. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that granting an order of injunction would amount to staying the decree of possession passed by the Trial Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which has attained the finality. In view of the fact that the first appeal has been admitted, the possession of the applicant/appellant is required to be protected and it is necessary to clarify that the decree of possession passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act will not come in the way of the applicant/appellant in claiming the relief of temporary injunction. In view of this, the application is allowed. The respondents are restrained from disturbing the possession of the applicant/appellant over the suit property on the basis of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no.204 of 1992 decided on 12-1-2001. Judge pdl