1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.466 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.919 OF 2007 Subhash Vishwanath Jadhav .... Appellant V/s. Vitthal Vishwanath Jadhav and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Amit Sale, for the appellant. Mr.N.J.Patil, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 P.C. 1. The appellant is the original plaintiff of Special Civil Suit No.259 of 2006 which is pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli. The said suit has been filed by the plaintiff for partition of movable and immovable properties of his father and mother. In the said suit, plaintiff preferred an interim injunction application against defendant Nos.1 to 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father had kept an amount of Rs.3,50,000/­ by way of fixed deposit in the joint name of himself, his wife and defendant No.1. The father of the plaintiff had also kept fixed deposit to the tune of Rs.7,82,855/­ in Astha Lokmanya Nagari Sahakari Credit Society Ltd., in the name of himself, his wife and defendant No.1. The plaintiff has prayed by interim injunction that the defendants may be 2 restrained from withdrawing the said amount, as their parents have expired and according to the plaintiff, he has claim over the said amount. 2. The suit has been resisted by the defendants on various grounds. It is case of the defendants that the deceased father had already executed Will in his favour and even fixed deposits are made in the joint name of his father, mother and defendant No.1 and in the fixed deposits, his name appears with his deceased parents. 3. The learned Trial Judge has considered the application and after considering the arguments of both the sides, has came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed this appeal from order challenging the aforesaid order which is impugned herein. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that before withdrawing the amount, the defendants should produced appropriate succession certificate before the bank authority. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and have gone through the order passed by the Trial Judge. It is required to be noted that the Trial Judge has found that the plaintiff has also filed another Regular Civil Suit No.330 of 2006, by which defendant NO.1 is restrained from carrying out business of repairing and charging of batteries. The learned counsel for defendants submitted that because of 3 injunction, he is deprived of his own business, which he has developed through his own personal skill and had earned money from the said business, which he is deprived of by interim injunction. The learned counsel for defendants submitted that the plaintiff has already purchased his own property for which defendant has also contributed and now he is restraining defendants from withdrawing the amount, which according to him, it is his own amount. 5. It is required to be noted that the Trial Judge have given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no prima facie case against the defendants. The plaintiff has also filed another suit being Special Civil Suit No.330 of 2006 against defendant No.1 and 4, in which he has obtained injunction restraining the defendants from entering into any transaction or withdrawing the money. By way of this injunction, the defendant No.1 is restrained from carrying out the business of repairing and charging the batteries. The Trial Judge in my view, is perfectly justified in refusing the injunction against the defendants/present respondents as after filing the suit for injunction, the plaintiff has filed present suit seeking relief for partition of the movable and immovable properties. The Trial Judge also observed that before withdrawing money, the defendants may be required to produce succession certificate. Of course, on this point, this Court would not like to say anything. I am in 4 agreement with the submission of learned counsel for defendant No.1 that defendant No.1 is totally out of business because of the interim injunction granted in earlier suit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance in the appeal from order, as the learned Trial Judge has rightly considered the aforesaid aspects in a proper perspective. The appeal from order is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. In view of the dismissal of the appeal from order, no orders are required to be passed in the civil application and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)