1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8976 OF 2007 Sagar D. Sakhare & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Sanjay W. Sathe .. Respondent Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for petitioners Mr.D.B.Lonkar for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13th March 2008 P.C. . This petition challenges the order passed by the lower appellate court in Misc.Civil Appeal No.159 of 2007 delivered on 19th November 2007, by which the injunction granted by the trial 2 court in favour of the petitioners who are original plaintiffs has been vacated. 2. The lower appellate has passed the following order:- "1. The appeal is hereby allowed. 2. The impugned order of the trial court restraining particularly the defendant No.2 from alienating the suit properties till final disposal of the suit is hereby set aside. 3. In consequence the plaintiff’s application Exh.5 for interim injunction filed before the trial court stands dismissed. 4. Costs of the appeal to follow the result of the suit. 3 5. The trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit as far as it is possible to do so." 3. The order of the trial court which was impugned before the lower appellate court by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is in the following terms:- "1. Exhibit 5 is hereby is allowed. 2. The defendants including more particularly the defendant No.1 is hereby restrained from creating third party interest in respect of the suit property till final disposal of the suit. 3. Costs in cause." 4. Mr.Lonkar is appearing for Sanjay Waman 4 Sathe, who is Appellant No.1/defendant No.1 and also impleaded as respondent No.1 to this petition. The trial court order restrains him from creating third party rights in respect of the suit property till final disposal of the suit and that order is vacated by the lower appellate court. I enquired as to whether this defendant has created any rights in respect of the suit property. 5. In his presence, Mr.Lonkar makes a statement that original defendant No.1 has not created any third party interests in the suit property and has no desire to create them till the hearing of the suit. 6. In the light of this statement, it is not necessary to go into any larger issue or controversy and the order of lower appellate court stands substituted by the following:- 5 (a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of R.C.S.No.1171 of 2006 the original defendant No.1 shall not create any third party interest in respect of suit properties. (b) Hearing of R.C.S.No.1171 of 2006 is expedited. Trial Court to endeavour and dispose of the suit for partition as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (c) Needless to state that the Court below to decide the suit uninfluenced by any observations made by it or the lower appellate court or the recording of the statement as above by this Court. All pleas on merits are expressly kept open. Petition disposed of. 6 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)