dgm gm gm 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 WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.6482 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6482 OF 2008 PETITION NO.6482 OF 2008 Shri Bapu Maruti Hagawane ...Petitioner Vs. Late Hanumant Patlu Hagwane, ...Respondents. through His legal heirs & ors. Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr Shriram S. Kulkarni for respondent No.1-A. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 8th October, 2008. : 8th October, 2008. : 8th October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner/plaintiff has invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby challenged the reversal order passed by the District Judge, Pune whereby while allowing the Appeal, quashed and set aside the order of injunction granted by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune at Exhibit "5" in Regular Civil Suit No.1124/2007. By the said order defendants 1 to 10 were temporarily restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit land. 2. The Appellate Court, after considering the material placed on record as well as the rival contentions has ( 2 ) observed in paragraphs 17 and 21 as follows: "17. 7/12 extracts of the rest of the suit lands also are very vague. They do not show distinctly area of the lands in exclusive possession of the plaintiff out of the remaining lands out of the suit lands. A number of other persons are having shares in the said lands. The area of the lands of their respective shares also have not been distinctly mentioned in the 7/12 extracts. These lands have not been measured and demarcated to show distinctly the particular portions which are in possession of persons named in the 7/12 extracts thereof. Thus, the plaintiff has prima facie failed to establish identity of the suit lands distinctly by adducing evidence on record. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the negative. 21. In view of my findings on point nos. 1 to 3 above, the appeal will have to be allowed and the impugned order will have to set aside. The plaintiff would be at liberty to get the suit lands measured and demarcated and then to seek ( 3 ) necessary reliefs, if desired. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. In the result, in answer to point no.4, I pass the following order: ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned order is set aside. 3. The parties to bear their own costs." 3. I am not inclined to interfere with the said order specially in view of above two paragraphs. 4. It is necessary before granting ad-interim injunction in favour or against parties with regard to the physical possession of the property to have clear description and/or at least property should be distinguishable. Based upon vague and unclear pleading, if such injunction order is passed, it creates problems rather than solving it, specially when there are other person’s rights and interests involved in the same property. It is necessary that ( 4 ) the Court should consider first at least prima facie, in case of urgency, the identity of the property. 5. The District Judge has granted liberty to get the suit land measured and demarcated and then to seek necessary reliefs, in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore is correct. 6. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)