:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2007 Jaysingh Dinkar Khot ...Petitioner Versus Dinkar Bhau Khot and ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.A.B.Tidhe i/by. P.D.Dalvi, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Shah, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The lower Appellate Court has vacated an injunction order issued in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and against the respondent-defendant which was passed by the Civil judge Junior Division, Ichalkaranji. 2. The petitioner has filed a Suit for partition and perpetual injunction being R.C.Suit No.287 of 2005 in the court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Ichalkaranji. The case of the petitioner, is that the lands are agricultural lands and they are claimed on the basis of a common ancestor. Both sides are related to each :2: :2: :2: other and the case is that the lands are in possession of the Original Plaintiff and Defendants since then. 3. The controversy, with regard to the lands being ancestral or the exclusive property of the deceased Bhau Khot or whether his sister Tanibai could be said to be the owner of the same on the basis that the lands have been given to her as maintenance is pending in the Suit. That is a controversy which must be answered and decided on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence to be led at the trial. The Trial Court therefore thought it fit to preserve the status-quo at site and directed the Defendants not to alienate, dispose off, sell or create any third party rights in the suit properties. The defendants were restrained on 11.10.2005. 4. They preferred an Misc.Civil Appeal which has been allowed by the impugned order. 5. To my mind, the District Judge-1, Ichhalkaranj was not required to undertake detailed scrutiny or in-depth investigation with regard to the status of the :3: :3: :3: property. The matter is at an inter-locutory stage. The evidence is yet to be led. All that was requested by the plaintiff is to preserve the status-quo at site, so that, ultimately if he succeeds he must be able to enjoy the fruits of the Decree. If the property has changed hands during the course of the litigation, then, it is natural that complications arise in execution of partition Decrees. Considering the nature of the request and that the petitioners case is yet to be established and proved the Trial courts’ injunction should have been continued. It being vacated on the basis of the rights of the parties at this inter-locutory stage has caused severe prejudice and irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the suit for partition is for benefit of all the sharers and whether they are added as plaintiffs or defendants is of no consequence. In such circumstances, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The order of the Trial Court is restored and it shall continue till the hearing and final disposal of the suit. Since, the suit is for partition and permanent injunction, the Trial Court would be well advised to dispose off the same as :4: :4: :4: expeditiously as possible and by 31.10.2008. sd/- *********