1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 795 OF 2009 Mr.Bilal Essak Parihar ... Appellant v/s Sadhana Prafullachandra Gavali & ors. ... Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by Ms.Jai Kanade for the appellant. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i/by Amol P. Mhatre for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The appellant who is the defendant No.1 in the suit filed before the 3rd Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Pune, has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2009. 2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Court has issued certain injunctions against the defendant No.1 although he is a co-owner in the suit property. According to 2 respondent No.1 he has purchased the shares of defendant Nos.2 to 10 and, therefore, is entitled to unrestricted access to the suit property. Undisputedly, the suit property consists of a dwelling house, open space, tenanted chawl, etc. The injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs are as follows:- “(1) The defendant No.1 is hereby temporarily restrained from demolishing the bungalow standing on the suit property described in para No.1 of the application, from carrying out the construction in the suit property, from interfering and obstructing in the plaintiffs peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property, from transferring, selling, creating third party rights and inducting third person in the suit property, not to recover any rent or possession of the tenanted premises from the tenants till the decision of the suit. (2) Issue temporary, mandatory injunction against the defendant No.1 directing him to remove the chain lock put over the main gate situated on the southern western side of the suit property and thereby ensure free and unrestricted access to the suit property. The defendant No.1 further directed by an order of temporary, mandatory injunction to reconnect the under ground water supply line leading in side the main bungalow if it is disconnected within the period of one month.” 3. In my opinion, there is no need to modify the injunctions granted with respect to demolition of the bungalow carrying out construction in the suit property and from interfering or obstructing with the plaintiffs’ peaceful use and enjoyment of the suit property. However, the injunction granted in respect of the transfer, sale, creating third party rights and inducting third person in the suit property must be modified. The defendant No.1 who has 3 undivided share in the suit property cannot be injuncted from transferring, selling or creating third party rights in respect of his undivided share in the suit property. Obviously, the third person who would be transferred the rights of the defendant No.1, if at all, would be entitled to the same rights as available in law to defendant No.1. 4. In respect of the injunction not to recover rent or possession of the tenanted premises from the tenants till the decision in the suit, in my opinion, the injunction must be modified. 5. The tenants shall deposit the rent in the Court which will remain deposited in the Court during the pendency of the suit. In the event any tenant wishes to vacate the tenanted chawl, the plaintiff or defendant No.1, at whose instance the tenant is vacating the chawl, may apply to the Court with respect to the possession of the vacated premises. 6. As regards the chain-lock put over the main gate, Mr.Godbole appearing for the defendant No.1 states that no such chain-lock has been put over the main gate and, therefore, there was no need to pass such an injunction. He further states that there is no discussion at all in the impugned order with respect to the disconnection of the 4 underground water supply line and further contends that defendant No.1 is not responsible at all for any disconnection of the water supply. 7. Undisputedly, the main gate must be available for access to the plaintiffs. Mr.Dhakephalkar, on instructions from the plaintiff No.4, states that she will apply for reconnection of the underground water supply and in such an event the defendant No.1 should not obstruct the work. This statement of the learned counsel is accepted. Obviously, therefore, the defendant No.1 will not obstruct the reconnection of the water supply. 8. Appeal from order dismissed with the aforesaid modifications to the impugned order. 9. Civil application Nos.994 of 2009 also stand dismissed in view of dismissal of the appeal from order. ..... 5