1 NMS-1136-2011.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1136 OF 2011 IN APPEAL [L] NO.716 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.367 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.325 OF 2009 Rajendrakumar Amarchand Jain ..Appellant Vs Mohanraj Rupchand Jain alias Chhajed ..Respondent -- Mr.M.S.Bhandari i/b.Ms.Pranjali M.Bhandari, for appellant. Mr.Santosh Adakia, for respondent. -- CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 12 th JULY, 2011 P.C: For the reasons disclosed in the affidavit in support of the Motion, the Motion is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [D.K.DESHMUKH, J.] 2 NMS-1136-2011.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL [L] NO.716 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.367 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.325 OF 2009 Rajendrakumar Amarchand Jain ..Appellant Vs Mohanraj Rupchand Jain alias Chhajed ..Respondent -- Mr.M.S.Bhandari i/b.Ms.Pranjali M.Bhandari, for appellant. Mr.Santosh Adakia, for respondent. -- CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 12 th JULY, 2011 P.C: Heard. The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the suit is for claiming right of pre-emption. But, perusal of the prayer clauses shows that there is no decree sought for enforcement of plaintiff’s alleged right of pre-emption in relation to the property owned by plaintiff. Only relief of decree of declaration is claimed that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant is void. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has purchased 8/9 th share of other co-sharer 3 NMS-1136-2011.odt in the property. Even according to the plaintiff, he is the owner of 1/9 th share in the property. In this view of the matter, therefore, the learned single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly declined to grant interim order in favour of the plaintiff. The suit itself appears to be incomplete and misconceived. Appeal is rejected. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [D.K.DESHMUKH, J.]