1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.183 OF 2009 Dr. Mrs.Roshan Farokh Chinoy & Anr. ....Applicants Versus Mr. Jimmy Dara Sukhia ....Respondent Mr.Vineet Naik i/b. Sukand Kurlkarni for the Applicants. Mr. R. S. Apte, Sr.Counsel, i/b. Mr.Vaibhav Patankar for the Respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 27TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. Heard Mr. Vineet Naik, learned Counsel for the Applicants and Mr. Apte, Senior Counsel for the Respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 3. The Applicant takes exception to the order dated 29th January, 2009 passed by the Ad-hoc Dist.Judge-1 and Addl.Sessions Judge, Pune in Application at exhibit-5 in Execution(Darkhast) Petition No.147 of 2009, whereby the Applicants are restrained from commencing their theatre business at Victory Theatre situate at East Street, Camp, Pune. Dispute is about the property viz. Victory Theatre, 2429, East Street, Camp, Pune. One Dara Sukhia 2 was the owner and in possession of the “Victory Theatre”. The possession of the said Theatre was handed over to late Dina Sukhia in pursuance of the order dated 17th March, 1987 in Execution (Darkhast) Petition No.107 of 1980. On 1st January, 1993, the Deed of Partnership to govern the functioning and the business activities in respect of the said theatre came to be executed inter-se between late Dina Sukhia and Applicants. Late Dina Sukhia executed Will on 20th June, 1987 and thereafter Codicil on 17th March, 2002. Due to the death of Dina Sukhia, the accounts were settled by the Applicants and on 30th June, 2003 a new Deed of Partnership came to be executed inter-se between the surviving partners i.e. the Applicants. 4. The Respondent is the son and the Applicant No.1 is the daughter and Applicant No.2 is the Son-in-law of late Dina Sukhia. The Respondent filed Arbitration Petition no.27 of 2007 under section 11 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the dispute to Arbitral Tribunal. This Arbitration Petition is pending in this High Court. The Respondent thereafter filed Miscellaneous Application No.625 of 2008 against the Applicants under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for temporary injunction restraining the Applicants from parting with the possession of Victory Theatre. The learned District Judge by his order dated 13th October, 2008 directed the parties to maintain status-quo till further orders. 5. The Respondent filed Execution(Darkhast) Petition no.147 of 2009 to execute the above order dated 13th October, 2008 on the contention that inspite of order of status-quo the Applicants are intending to commence their theatre business and as stated above by the order impugned in this Civil Revision Application, the Applicants are restrained from commencing their theatre business at Victory Theatre. 3 6. Having heard, the learned counsel for the respective parties, I find merit in the Revision Application. The proceeding under section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation act viz. Misc.Application No. 625 of 2008 was initiated by the Respondent for injunction restraining the Applicants from parting with the possession of Victory Theatre. The Applicants filed reply by filing affidavit to this Application. In paragraph 10, the Applicant no.2 made a statement that they have absolutely no intention to part with possession, neither they have any intention to create third party interest in the property. On the basis of this statement, the learned District Judge on 13th October, 2008 passed an order. This Order makes reference to the statement made by the Applicant No.2 in his reply affidavit and thereafter directed the parties to maintain status-quo. In these facts and circumstances, the status-quo will have to be interpreted to mean that the Applicants will not part with possession of or create third party interest in Victory Theatre. By no stretch of imagination, status-quo can be interpreted to mean injunction restraining the Applicants from commencing their theatre business. The learned Ad-hoc District Judge, therefore, in my opinion committed an error in passing the impugned order, thereby restraining the Applicants from commencing their theatre business. 7. In the facts and circumstances, I dispose of the Revision Application by passing the following order : i) The impugned order dated 29th January, 2009 passed by the Ad- hoc Dist.Judge-1 and Addl.Sessions Judge, Pune in Application at exhibit-5 in Execution(Darkhast) Petition No.147 of 2009 is quashed and set-aside. 4 ii) Rule is accordingly, made absolute in above terms. 8. Needless to mention that the Respondent is at liberty to apply to the District Court for other appropriate reliefs. (R. V. MORE, J.)