kbp 1 4557-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4557 OF 2009 Sunil Ramchandra Harpale ..Petitioner Vs. Ramchandra Pandharinath Harpale and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.Pratap Patil, for petitioner. Mr.S.S.Bhalerao, for respondent no.7. ....... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who is the original plaintiff. 2] The first respondent is the father of the petitioner and the second respondent is mother of the petitioner. Fifth respondent is the wife of the petitioner and sixth respondent is the minor son of the petitioner. The suit is filed by the petitioner claiming one half undivided share in the suit property. The first respondent-father has alienated the suit property in favour of the defendant nos.7 and 8 (the respondent no.7 and 8). In the plaint, it is disclosed that on 27 th January, 2006 an agreement for sale was executed by first to fourth respondents in favour of seventh defendant. The stand of the first respondent was that it was his self acquired property. The application for temporary injunction made by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. That is why this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3] After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the courts kbp 2 4557-09.sxw below were justified in rejecting the prayer for grant of equitable relief of temporary injunction. It must be noted here that the courts below have found that even wife and minor son of the petitioner are the signatories to the agreement and in fact in the plaint allegations have been made by the petitioner even against his wife and minor son. The wife of the petitioner has executed a power of attorney on the basis of the agreement executed by her. Both the courts below have declined to grant discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rights of the petitioner will have to be protected. The suit is pending, and therefore, it is obvious that further actions of the respondents are subject to final outcome of the suit. No case is made out for interference with the discretionary order passed by the trial Courts below. Writ Petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )