: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.106 OF 2010 Pratap N. Mistry ... Appellant V/s. Dilip Chunilal Mistry & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.A. Sawant for Appellant Mr.S.N. Vaishnav for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: FEBRUARY 8, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.1.2010 passed by the City Civil Court allowing the Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 2. Mr.Sawant, appearing for the appellant, submits that the trial Court has while allowing the Motion decreed the suit itself since the prayers in the Motion and in the suit are identical. 3. A perusal of the prayers in both the Motion and the suit does support the submission made by Mr.Sawant. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the property over which both the parties claim to have exclusive ownership rights must be maintained during the hearing of the suit. : 2 : 4. In these circumstances, in my opinion there is no need to interfere with the trial Court’s order by which prayer clause (a) has been granted, except to the extent that the plaintiff also and will not create third party rights in the suit property. 5. However, with respect to prayer clause (b), in my opinion, such a prayer could not be granted at the interim stage. The learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that because of the non-cooperation of the appellant, the suit property may be damaged as it would not be possible for the plaintiffs to maintain it on their own without recourse to the joint account which is today standing in the name of the appellant as well as defendant No.1. 6. In my view, therefore, the order will have to be modified to the following extent: (i) The plaintiff and defendant No.1 will continue to operate the bank account in the Bank of Maharashtra Khetwadi branch, Mumbai being Account No.15962 together. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate with the respondents for the withdrawal of the funds for the maintainance of the suit property, including payment of property taxes, water charges, electricity charges, etc. These amounts shall be withdrawn from the bank account on the bills being perused by both the parties. According to the learned advocate for the plaintiff, the building maintainance charges including the salary of the sweeper, etc. are less than Rs.5,000/-. p.m. This amount also may be withdrawn from the account, jointly each month. : 3 : 7. In these circumstances, the appellant shall cooperate with the respondents for signing the cheques for payment of the aforesaid charges during the pendency of the suit. Obviously, this order is subject to the rights and contentions of both the parties in the trial Court. 8. Appeal from Order is disposed of accordingly. 9. In view of the above, Civil Application No.162 of 2010 does not survive and is disposed of as such.