1 WP 8314/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8314 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. N.J. Patil for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following reasons:­ (i) The order is interlocutory and calls for no interference. (ii) Two courts below have concurrently 2 WP 8314/10 declined to grant leave and the discretion exercised by the two courts below in refusing the injunction is not shown to be perverse. (iii) Admittedly, the original defendant no.3, who is a co­parcener, had taken a loan from the respondent no.5 and there is an order passed by the competent authority for sale of the share of original defendant no.3 for recovery of the loan. What is being sought to be put in auction is the share of the original defendant no.3 and not the entire property. The petitioner who claims to be co­parcener cannot prevent sale of the share of the original defendant no.3. 3. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)