-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 JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.566 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.566 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.566 OF 2007 Along with Along with Along with Civil Application No.795 of 2007 Civil Application No.795 of 2007 Civil Application No.795 of 2007 Smt.Rajeshwari Motilal Verma and anr. .. Appellants. Vs Shri Surendra Bhagwandin Choudhari and ors. .. Respondents. Mr Rajiv Narula i/b M/s Jhangiani Narula & Associates, for the appellants. Mr S.H.Joshi a/w Mr G.S.Godbole, for respondent nos 3,4,8/1,8/2,8/3,9,10,15 & 16. Mr Dhaval Mehta i/b M/s D.M.Legal Associates, for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. DATE : 22.01.09. DATE : 22.01.09. DATE : 22.01.09. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants-defendant nos 16 and 17 have impugned an order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the Civil Judge Sr Dn, Palghar, on the application at Exhibit-101 in Special Civil Suit No.38 of 2006. Though the said application filed by the appellants has been rejected, the learned Judge has passed an order of injunction restraining the other defendants from creating third party rights or interest in the suit property till Exhibits 5 and 27 - applications filed by the plaintiff are disposed of on merits. In the application at Exhibit-101, the appellants prayed for injunction retraining the defendants from making any -2- further construction in the suit property. That prayer has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. My attention was drawn to the order passed by this court dated 22.3.2007 disposing of Appeal from order no.474 of 2006. By that order, the order passed on the applications at Exhibits 5 and 27 was quashed and set aside and the plaintiff was directed to add present appellants as party defendants in the suit. Further, till disposal of the applications at Exhibits 5 and 27, the defendants in the suit were restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property. It was also clarified that construction, if any, was made it would be subject to further orders that would be passed in the aforementioned applications and in the suit. The trial court was also directed to decide the applications at Exhibits 5 and 27 afresh after giving an opportunity to the defendants including the present appellants of being heard. 4. It appears that the appellants, instead of filing their reply and contesting applications at Exhibits 5 and 27 filed by the plaintiffs, chose to file independent application at Exhibit-101 with similar prayers as made in Exhibits 5 and 27 by the plaintiffs. I view thereof, the learned Judge refused to grant the injunction, as prayed, and simply restrained the defendants from creating third -3- party rights/interest in the suit property till the disposal of the applications at Exhibits 5 and 27. Thereafter, the applications at Exhibits 5 and 27 filed by the plaintiffs were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 9.5.2007. The operative portion of the order dated 9.5.2007 reads thus: "Applications at Exh.5 and 27 are partly allowed. Defendant nos 1 to 5 and 7 to 15 are hereby restrained by temporary injunction from creating third party interest in the suit property (more particularly described in Schedule 2 of the Plaint) till the decision of the suit. Defendant nos 1 to 7 may continue with the construction work on land Survey No.82/2 at their own risk and cost subject to final orders which may be passed at the time of decision of the suit." 5. There is no dispute that when these applications were heard and disposed of, the appellants were also heard on merits. It is against this backdrop, I do not find any error committed by the learned judge while passing the impugned order. The Appeal from order is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the civil application also stands disposed of. . It is always open to the appellants to take out appropriate proceedings if the defendants commit breach of the aforesaid order passed by the trial court. -4- (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.)