IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7016 OF 2008 Sunil Baburao Deolalikar & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Thakurdas Jeevandas Shah & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Girish S.Godbole i/b Mr.Prashant Hagare for Petitioners. Mr.Dilip A.Bodake for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 27, 2009. JANUARY 27, 2009. JANUARY 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Bodake waives notice for Respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Writ Petition takes exception to the : 2 : Judgment and Order dated 19th September 2008 passed by the District Judge-1 at Baramati, Pune in Miscellaneous Appeal No.27 of 2008 which in turn challenges the injunction order dated 26th June 2008 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indapur below Exhibit 5 in R.C.S. No.101 of 2008. For the nature of order that I propose to pass, it is unnecessary to burden this order with all the facts of the case. 5. Suffice it to observe that the Petitioners who are the owners of CTS No.3070 had filed Suit being Suit No.56 of 2000 in which interim relief as prayed by the Petitioners has been granted by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indapur on 4th April 2000 in the following terms. "O R D E R The application is partly allowed. Defendants, their servants, agents or anybody claiming through them are hereby temporarily restrained from causing any kind of obstruction to the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiffs through southern lane and the door fixed in west north corner in south north wall in between the suit property and the city survey No.3069. Most specifically : 3 : described in Para 3(i) supra. Defendants, their agent, servants, or any body claiming through them are also hereby temporarily restrained from causing obstruction to the use and enjoyment of drainage which passes through the city survey no.3069 at its north side in east-west direction and which is adjacent to the above lane. Application in respect of right of enjoyment of easementary rights regarding windows, door fixed in south north wall towards southern side, and the drainage so called which alleged towards southern side of the suit property specifically described in para no.3(iii) to (v) supra is hereby rejected. Cost in cause." 6. The fact that the said order is operating between the parties is not in dispute. In other words, the Respondents are bound by the said injunction granted by the Joint Civil Judge in the Suit instituted by the Petitioners. On the other hand, the Respondents have now instituted R.C.S. Suit No.101 of 2008 praying for perpetual injunction and incidental reliefs. That Suit is filed by the Respondents claiming to be owners of C.T.S. No.3069. During the pendency of the said Suit, interim injunction is prayed by the Respondents, which has been granted by the Trial : 4 : Court on 26th June 2008. The Trial Court has failed to consider the effect of injunction order dated 4th April 2000 in its correct perspective. The Trial Court has discarded that injunction on the specious reasoning that the present Suit is in relation to whole of C.T.S. No.3069. Whereas, injunction granted in favour of the Petitioners in R.C.S. No.56 of 2000 was restricted to the disputed wall, lane and drainage. The fact remains that the said injunction will operate against the Respondents. So long as the said injunction operates, the injunction that could be granted by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indapur in the subsequent Suit filed by the Respondents would and ought to operate in relation to the remaining area of C.T.S. No.3069. The Court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot undo the order of injunction which is already operating in favour of the Petitioners granted in Suit instituted by them being R.C.S.No.56 of 2000. No doubt, the Appeal Court has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners. The Appeal Court has glossed over this crucial aspect of the matter. : 5 : 7. In the circumstances, this Petition succeeds to the limited extent by clarifying and/or modifying order of injunction granted by the Trial Court dated 26th June 2008 to mean that the same will operate in relation to C.T.S. No.3069 except the portion of the said C.T.S. number which is covered by the injunction order granted in favour of the Petitioners on 4th April 2000 in Suit No.56 of 2000. The injunction in favour of the Petitioners is in relation to enjoyment of drainage which passes through the C.T.S.No.3069 at its north side in east-west direction and which is adjacent to the northern lane. In other words, the Respondents will be free to enjoy and develop C.T.S. No.3069 except to this limited extent. 8. In the event, the proposed development of the Respondents is likely to impact any of the portion which is covered by the injunction order dated 4th April 2000 passed in R.C.S. No.56 of 2000 referred to above, the Respondents will have to in the first place seek appropriate directions and/or clarification from the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indapur in relation to injunction : 6 : order dated 4th April 2000 in R.C.S.No.56 of 2000. It is only thereafter, the Respondents would be free to develop even that portion of the property which is likely to be affected by the said injunction order, failing which, the Respondents will expose themselves to action of having committed wilful violation of the order of the Court. With this clarification, the Petition deserves to be disposed of. 9. Needless to observe that if the Respondents approach the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Indapur, for clarification of order dated 4th April 2000, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in the Judgments which are impugned in the present Writ Petition. Ordered accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.