1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.754 OF 2006 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3771 OF 2004 IN S.C.SUIT NO.4367 OF 2004 Raju U. Wankhede ...Appellant. (Org. Plff.) v/s. Smt. Suman U. Mishra & Anr. ...Respondents. (Org. Defts.) Mr. J.M.Chadankar ,adv. For the Appellant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 3, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None for the respondents. 2 Appeal was preferred by the original plaintiff against the rejection of notice of motion by the learned Judge City Civil Court. According to the plaintiff, he is in exclusive possession of the suit premises being Room No.7 admeasuring 16’ X 11’ situated at Durga Chawl, Vitt Bhatti Goregaon-Mulund Link Road, Goregaon (East) as owner. According to him, under agreement for sale, defendant nos.1 and 2 had put him in possession on 20.3.2004. They also received consideration amount. Plaintiff is residing in the said premises and 2 claims to have taken electricity meter as well as ration card of that address. However, the defendant/respondent no.2 orally threatened to forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the said premises. Apprehending such dispossession, plaintiff filed Suit No.4367 of 2004 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him or from taking forcible possession of the suit premises save and except by due process of law. By taking out notice of motion, similar prayer for temporary injunction was made. 3 Notice of motion was contested by the defendants. According to them, the alleged agreement for sale was forged and bogus. No such agreement had taken place. However, taking undue advantage of that forged document, plaintiff had taken illegal possession of the premises by changing original lock of the suit premises and, therefore, he is not entitled to injunction from the Court. The trial Court observed in the impugned order that prima-facie, the plaintiff has proved his possession. However, merely because threat of dispossession was administered once, there was no valid reason to believe that the defendants really intended to take forcible possession of the property. The trial Court observed that apprehension of forcible dispossession does not appear to be well founded. With these observations, notice of motion 3 was rejected. 4 Whether agreement for sale on which the plaintiff has based his claim is genuine or not and whether by that document he got any title or possession are the questions to be decided in the suit. According to him, he has paid the consideration amount and he was put in possession. Though this fact is denied by the defendants, the defendants admitted in the written statement that plaintiff is in possession. Whether he has taken possession lawfully or he has taken possession illegally is again a question which can be decided only in the suit. Fact remains that the plaintiff was in possession when the suit was filed, therefore, pending the suit his possession could be protected by granting temporary injunction. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant makes a statement that even today the plaintiff is in possession. This contention is not controverted on behalf of the respondents as none appears for them. Suit itself is pending for the last more than 7 years, therefore, in my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice if the suit itself is disposed off as early as possible and meanwhile, the temporary injunction is granted. 5 Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Notice of motion is allowed and respondents/defendants are hereby restrained from disturbing or 4 interfering in possession of the plaintiff pending the suit otherwise than by due process of law. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose off the Special Civil Suit No.4367 of 2004 as early as possible and in any case within six months from this date. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)