ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5725 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5725 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5725 OF 2008 Umesh Shantaram Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. Raghuvir Vasudev Patil ...Respondent. Mr.Kunal Damle i/by Mr.S.S.Gawde for the Petitioners. Mr.V.A.Gangal with Mr.Ashok Gade for for Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 14th November, 2008. : 14th November, 2008. : 14th November, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- Petitioner No.1 has purchased the property from one Smt. Mina Manohar Gawad by registered sale deed dated 12/03/1999. The name of the Petitioner No.1 accordingly also recorded in the Revenue Record. They are in absolute possession. Therefore, being registered owner, entitled to use and occupy and deal with the property. They have challenged the impugned order dated 25/06/2008 whereby the District Judge, Palghar has reversed the order on Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2007 and passed the order restraining the Defendants-Petitioners from transferring the suit lands, unless consulted/ consented by the Plaintiff-Respondent,till disposal of ( 2 ) the suit. 2. I am inclined to interfere with the said order as, at present the Petitioners are registered owners of the property. The unconditional withdrawal of the Civil Suit bearing No.117 of 1999 by the Respondent which was against Smt. Mina Gawad from whom the Petitioners have purchased the said property is also relevant factor. The Civil Suit No.117 of 1999 was filed for specific performance of agreement dated 01/06/1990 by the Respondent. In this background, the injunction sought in the present suit which is simplicitor for injunction in spite of the unconditional withdrawal of the suit, was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. There is no case at this stage to pass such order as passed by the Appellate Court by reversing the order of Trial Court. No relief, at this stage, in such Suit ought to have been granted in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiff. The unconditional withdrawal of the Suit, though the Petitioners were party, in no way disturb and decide the registered sale deed dated 12th March, 1999 based upon which they became exclusive owners and free to use and enjoy the property. ( 3 ) 3. There is no prima facie case or balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff- Respondent. There is no question of irreparable loss as sought to be contended and accepted by the lower Appellate Court. 4. Taking the rival contentions into the consideration, apart from above, I am also of the view that there is no case made out by the Plaintiff-Respondent for interim protection/ relief as granted by the impugned Judgment. In the result, the impugned Judgment dated 25/06/2008 in Misc. Civil Application No.25 of 2007 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 15/05/2007, passed by the lower Trial Court below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No.72 of 2007 is maintained. The Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)