1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1081 OF 2009 Rshmi Narendra Thakkar & Ors. Vs. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Urban Coop. Bank Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 16 th JUNE, 2009. This Writ Petition is preferred against the two concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby they rejected the application for injunction. 2. The present petitioners instituted a suit for declaration and injunction restraining the respondents from auctioning the suit property in which they have share. It is the contention of the 2 petitioners that they have a share in the suit property and if the entire property will be sold they would be put to great loss. 3. Learned Judge of the trial Court found that petitioners were not entitled to injunction. Appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that loan amount is only 6 lacs while the house is worth more than Rs. 60 lacs and if sold it would cause loss to the plaintiffs-petitioners. Learned Judge of the trial Court had rejected the prayer for injunction on the ground that plaintiffs should have in fact filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The said suit having not filed they were not entitled to injunction. Appellate Court also concurred with the finding. When the plaintiffs came out with a case that it is a joint family property and it was mortgaged by only one of the member it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiffs to have filed a suit. Without said suit having been filed the petitioners are not entitled to order of injunction restraining respondents from auctioning the property. I do not therefore see any substance in the writ petition. Discretion has been properly used by the Courts below. There is no 3 need to interfere with the discretion used. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE svk 4 5 6