:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.812 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.812 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.812 OF 2007 Manohar Nana Patil & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Narayan Shankar Patil & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Rajesh S. Datar, adv. for the Appellants. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 22nd January, 2008. DATE: 22nd January, 2008. DATE: 22nd January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, who are the original plaintiffs. 2. The appellants filed the suit for partition of household and agricultural properties contending that there is a joint family of the plaintiffs and defendants. According to the plaintiffs, even though one document about partition was executed in 1995, actual partition had not taken place by metes and bounds according to their shares. The plaintiff also filed application Exhibit 5 seeking injunction restraining the defendants from disposing off or wasting the property in any manner pending the partition suit. Application was opposed on the ground that the partition had already taken place in 1971 and in 1995 and now there is no joint family or joint family property. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the :2: Application Exhibit 5 observing that the plaintiffs themselves had filed the Suit no.46 of 2004 wherein the plaintiffs had claimed that partition had taken place on 2-6-1995 and as per partition deed, they are in exclusive possession of the suit property. In view of the admission in the earlier suit, plaintiffs could not now claim partition of the suit property and, therefore, the plaintiffs could not get any temporary injunction. After perusal of the impugned order and the reasons given by the trial Court, I do not find any valid reasons to interfere in the discretion used by the trial Court while rejecting application. It is settled position of law that the appellate Court shall not normally interfere in the discretion used by the trial Court, while granting or rejecting prayer for temporary injunction. 3. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. 4. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application no.1134 of 2007 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)