spb/- 1 ao1357-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1357 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1668 /2010 Pawan Jagmohanlal Aggarwal & Ors. ... Appellants.. Vs. Maltibai Pandharinath Bhate @ pathare & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. T. R. Patel for the Appellants. Mr. H.J. Lulla with D.J.Lulla for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 08th DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard. This appeal is directed against the order, refusing ad- interim injunction. 2 Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party. The court has thus followed a normal rule prescribed under Rule 3 of Order 39 of the CPC. spb/- 2 ao1357-10.sxw 3 The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had purchased the property in the year 1988 and thus they had a strong prima facie case for grant of injunction. The registered deed of conveyance was not produced before the trial court. What was produced was a photocopy of an unregistered deed. In the circumstances, the trial court was justified in issuing a notice rather than issuing ex-parte order of injunction. The discretion exercised by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or even erroneous. No interference is called for in the discretion of the trial court at the ad-interim stage. 4 Hence, the Appeal is rejected summarily. 5 Since the Appeal itself is rejected, the civil application no. 1668/2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]