1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 35. WP/715/2009 ( BANSILAL JETHMAL MANTRI V/S PRASHANT MOHANLAL AGRAWAL AND ANR) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Senior Advocate, i/b Mr.M.M.Patil, Beedkar, Adv.for the petitioner. Mr.S.P.Shah, Adv., for R.no.1. Respondent no.2 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:8/10/2010 1. Heard. 2. The plaintiff, by filing suit no.109/2008, sought declaration and injunction against the defendants and by application Exh. 6 sought injunction in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, not to disturb his enjoyment/possession over the suit properties. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, granted relief of injunction by allowing Exh.6, however, the plaintiff could not enjoy fruits of the property owing to lock put up by the defendant. The plaintiff 2 applied to the learned Judge below Exh.39 for modification of the order recorded below Exh.6, specifying to remove the lock, however, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, did not act upon the application Exh.39. Consequently, both the orders were taken by the plaintiff in Miscellaneous Appeal No.108/2008 before the learned Additional District Judge, Jalgaon. The learned Additional District Judge, by his order dt.20th Jan.,2009, directed the defendant/respondent no.2 in the said appeal ( petitioner in the writ petition) to remove his lock over the suit premises in eight days from the date of the order (dt.20th Jan., 2009). It was also indicated, if the writ petitioner fails to remove the said lock within the stipulated time then the appellant/plaintiff was entitled to take Police aid as per law. 3. Several contentions are raised as to status of the plaintiff and he being hand in gloves with 3 another partner of the firm. It is also informed by learned Senior Advocate Mr.P.V.Mandlik that the partnership is in controversy and the property belongs to partnership. 4. Be that as it may, the rent receipt is of Rs.50/- per month which was produced. The goods lying in the room were verified by the learned Commissioner. Certain goods were also noticed belonging to the writ petitioner, however, at this stage, the directions issued by the learned District Judge of asking the writ petitioner to remove the lock in the factual scenario cannot be doubted. 5. A precaution to safeguard interests of writ petitioner can also be initiated. The grievance of inadequacy of so called rent also needs to be addressed. 6. Considering all these aspects, the amount of Rs.50/- per month, as stated by the plaintiff, should 4 be treated as Rs.500/- payable per month by the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. Such amount to be deposited before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, in RCS No.109/2008 on 8th of every English calender month. Liberty to deposit advance of either six months or a year permitted. The plaintiff, in his suit, having been in possession of the property, shall not create third party interests or part with the possession to third person. The learned Judge seized with the matter shall endeavour to expedite hearing. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of plaintiffs contentions. Writ Petition disposed of in above terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/715-09wp