1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12564 OF 2009 In Appeal From Order no.l2181 of 2009 IN Notice of Motion no.1509 of 2008 IN S.C. SUIT NO.1672 of 2008 Smt.Kiran Shankar Narwani .. Applicant. -versus Dr. Smt. Sushila Bhpendra Thacker .. Respondents Sudarshan Shingrani, Adv. for the Appellant.. Mr. Shefali R. Bhasin for the Respondent CORAM: R. G. KETKAR J (Vacation Judge) DATED: 20th May, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Appeal From Order challenges the order dated April 9, 2009, passed by the learned Judge, 2 City Civil Court, Mumbai, whereby learned Trial Judge, allowed Notion of Motion No.l509 of 2009, taken out by the original plaintiff restraining the appellant, her agents, servants and other members claiming through her, from entering into the suit premises or any part thereof and disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and from causing any sort of injury to the plaintiff and her property namely, “Zaveri Building”, first floor, 4, Shantaram Narayan Lane, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006, in any manner till the decision of suit. 2. Shri.Sudarshan Shingrani, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously submitted that the learned Judge committed grave error in allowing the Notice of Motion. He submitted that the appellant was born in the suit premises and even her daughter was born in the suit premises. The appellant is in possession of the suit premises alongwith the respondent and her sister Dr.Sonal. It is alleged by the appellant that at the behest of her sister Dr.Sonal and her husband, plaintiff instituted the present suit which is concocted false case. On these 3 among other grounds, learned counsel, challenged the impugned order. 3. On the other hand Ms.Shefali R. Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing record I find that the plaintiff had lodged complaint at Malbar Hill Police Station on March 22, 2008 u/s 406, 420, 465, 467, 448, 471 Indian Penal Code against the appellant. She was arrested on April l7, 2008. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Bombay, enlarged the appellant on bail on the condition that she will not enter into the suit premises till the disposal of the suit filed by the accused(appellant herein). It further seems that appellant addressed a letter dated May 9, 2009 to her advocate requesting him to withdraw Civil Suit No.719 of 2008 instituted by her on the grounds that she was already dispossessed from the suit premises in which she was staying since l992. This was obviously, as she was enlarged on bail on the 4 condition that she will not enter the suit premises till the disposal of the suit instituted by her. It is precisely for this reason the respondent herein was constrained to institute the present suit against the appellant. It is rather unfortunate to note that the respondent is 83 years old and mother of the appellant and there are serious disputes and differences between them. The learned Trial Judge recorded prima facie finding in paragraph Nos 11 and l2 of the impugned order indicating that the appellant had siphoned some amount by forging respondent’s signature as also committed theft of valuable documents and articles from the custody of the respondent. The appellant did not behave as a dutiable married daughter of the respondent. I do not find any reason to take different view in the matter. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. 5. In view of this Civil Application does not survive and the same is rejected. (R.G. KETKAR, J)