1 AO-860.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.860 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NOS.1485 & 1058 OF 2009 M/s. Reality Warehousing Private Ltd. .... Appellant Vs. Mrs. Nalini Bhalchandra Nikhal & Ors. .... Respondents Shri Pratap Patil for the Appellant. Shri S.A. Sawant for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 03, 2010 P.C: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune restraining the appellant from transferring the suit property or creating third party interests till the disposal of Special Civil Suit No.443 of 2007 before him. 2. The plaintiff, i.e., respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her properties against respondent Nos.2 to 16. The plaint was letter 2 AO-860.09 amended after finding that defendant Nos.1 to 5 had sold the property to the appellant-M/s. Reality Warehousing Private Limited on 29-7-2006 by a registered deed of assignment. The plaintiff filed an application for injunction to restrain defendant No.16, i.e., the present appellant from transferring the suit property to any third party or creating any third party interests during the pendency of the suit. This application was allowed by the learned trial Judge after hearing the parties. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/14th share in the suit property and, therefore, her interests were required to be protected. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had purchased the property after paying valuable consideration and even if the plaintiff may have 1/14th share in the property, the defendants should not be restrained by an injunction since the plaintiff s interests are duly taken care of by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and ordinarily, there should not have been occasion for issuance of such an injunction. However, such an injunction is a 3 AO-860.09 mere redundancy since even Section 52 of the Act would make any transfer effected during the pendency of the suit not binding on the plaintiff. In view of this, since the learned trial Judge has in exercise of his discretion granted temporary injunction, which does not put any additional restrictions than those which the appellant already suffers under Section 52 of the Act, I would not interfere in the order passed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, Civil Application Nos.1485 and 1058 of 2009 also stand dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)