1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1316 OF 2010 ARISING OUT OF NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1514 OF 2009 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1514 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1619 OF 2010 Madrasa M. Ahle Sunnat Waijamat & Ors. ...Appellants. v. Mohammed H.M.I. Farooqui & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare ,adv. For the Appellants. Mr. P.R.Rathod i/by Shri S.S.Lanke, advs. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appeal is preferred by the original defendants challenging the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by City Civil Court in Notice of Motion whereby the defendants were restrained from disturbing possession of the plaintiffs over the suit premises or interfering in his business. According to the defendants, property belongs to the defendant no.1 trust and the plaintiffs are trying to take forcible possession. On the other hand, the plaintiff claims that he had purchased the said shop from Mumtaz Hassan and Iquarar Ahmed for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- under unregistered 2 agreement for sale dated 27.7.1989. That agreement is not registered document. He has produced certain documents to show that he is paying ground rent to the Government. However, for that purpose also order was obtained on 29.11.2008. According to the parties, land belongs to the Municipal Corporation. It appears that defendant no.1 Trust is a mosque and large number of shops on that land belong to it and according to the defendants, suit shop is one of them. Plaintiffs have produced a copy of licence issued under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act which indicates that it was issued on 15th January, 1981. Genuineness of that document will have to be examined at the time of trial of the suit. In view of the given circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court. However, in my considered opinion, the plaintiffs/appellants should be required to deposit some amount with the trial court, which may be paid to the defendants as compensation, in case, the plaintiffs fail in the suit. 2 Therefore, appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order stands modified as follows: Defendants shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit premises till decision of the suit subject to condition that the plaintiffs shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month with the trial 3 Court with effect from 1st July, 2011 regularly. In case he fails, amount shall be paid to the defendants towards the compensation and that amount will be adjusted against whatever compensation they may claim as per law. In case, this amount is not deposited by the plaintiffs with the trial Court for any two months, the order of temporary injunction shall stand vacated on that ground itself. Continuation of occupation of the plaintiffs on the basis of temporary injunction shall not be treated as evidence of his right over the premises or his possession over the same on the date of filing of the suit. 3 As the appeal itself is finally disposed off, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)