1 c.a.2632.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2632 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2005 Vasantrao Venkatesh Deshmukh ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Shamrao Venkatesh Deshmukh ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri.Sandeep S.Deshmukh,Advocate holding for Shri.Rahul R.Karpe,Advocate for Applicant Shri.C.R.Deshpande,Advocate for Respondent ... CORAM: SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATE : 04TH MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, holding for Mr. Rahul Karpe, learned counsel for applicant- appellant (Original defendant) Mr.C.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent (Original Plaintiff). 2. Applicant-appellant has preferred present application requesting for stay to the effect, 2 c.a.2632.11 implementation and operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Latur, in Special Civil Suit No. 28 of 1999 dated 19.10.2004 in favour of present respondent, and consequently, grant injunction and/or status-quo, prohibiting the present respondent from alienating the subject matter of property by creating third party interest i.e. Block No.11( Northern Half Portion), C.T.S. No. 5622, Municipal House No. 437/2, situated at Kisan Bank Colony, Latur. In alternative prayed that list the First Appeal No. 85 of 2005 for final disposal and till then the parties may kindly be directed to maintain status- quo as regards the subject matter of suit property. 3. Affidavit in reply filed by sole respondent today, and same is taken on record. 4. Admittedly, parties herein i.e. Plaintiff and defendant are brothers of each other and 3 c.a.2632.11 original plaintiff, namely, Shamrao filed Special Civil Suit No.28 of 1999 against defendant, namely, Vasantrao before Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur for declaration and perpetual injunction. It was decreed in favour of the said plaintiff, and plaintiff i.e. Respondent herein was declared owner and possessor of the northern half portion of Block No.11 CTS No.5622, Municipal House No. 437/2 situated at Kisan Bank Colony, Latur. Defendant i.e. Appellant herein, his agent servant or anybody on his behalf were permanently restrained to obstruct peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree applicant-appellant herein preferred First Appeal No. 85 of 2005, challenging the same before this Court, it appears that said appeal was admitted by this Court, by order dated 20th July, 2005. 6. On the face of the said position, it appears 4 c.a.2632.11 that applicant-appellant had preferred Civil Application NO. 1508 of 2005, in First Appeal No. 85 of 2005, earlier, seeking stay to the aforesaid judgment and decree. However, this Court disposed of the Civil Application on 20.07.2005 by passing following order: “(1) Heard learned counsel for both the parties. (2) Perused the judgment an decree passed by the trial Court. It is not disputed that both the parties are in possession of half portion each. Therefore, there is no need to grant stay to the decree. (3) Application is disposed of.” 7. It also appears that applicant-appellant preferred Civil Application No.2528 of 2006, in accompanying Appeal No. 85 of 2005 with prayer that respondent herein be restrained from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property, however, the said application also 5 c.a.2632.11 was disposed of by this Court by passing following order on 24.04.2007. “(1) Heard. (2) The previous application for stay was rejected. No substantial ground made out for reconsideration. It is argued that the respondent may alienate his property and that will create complications. I do not agree. The transfer, if any, would be hit by principle of lis pendense and therefore, interim order is not necessary. C.A. disposed of.” 8. On the face of the said position, applicant- appellant has come with present Civil application seeking above referred prayers contending that paper publication has been published on 21.02.2011 by the proposed purchaser of the suit property from respondent herein, which is annexed at Exhibit R-1 along with present application, and the apprehension is posed by the applicant that respondent would alienate the suit property as 6 c.a.2632.11 stated in the said paper publication, therefore, prayed that applicant is entitled for prayers as set out in the present application. 9. However, while passing the order, by this Court on 24.04.2007 did not agree with the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant. Moreover, undisputedly, alleged proposed transfer, if any, of the suit property would be hit by principle of lis pendense, as observed by this Court earlier, and therefore, there is no necessity to grant prayers made by the applicant in the present application. 10. In the result, present application bears no substance and same stands rejected and is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J.] MTK 7 c.a.2632.11