1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.17 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM: P.R.BORKAR, J. Date : June 14, 2010 1. Heard Shri K.M.Babhulgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.F.Totla, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. With consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. Briefly stated, present appellants and Respondent No. 2 were the original defendants and present respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff. It is not disputed that present appellant No.1 Kalabai is the widow of Bhausaheb Marathe and appellant Nos.2 to 5 and 2 Respondents are sons and daughters of deceased Bhausaheb. 4. Special Civil Suit No.34 of 2008 was filed by present Respondent No.1 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule, for partition and separation possession in respect of property of Bhausaheb. In the suit, an application (Exh.5) was filed for injunction restraining defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in respect of the suit property. That application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule, on 17.12.2009. It is this order which is challenged by way of present appeal from order. 3 5. It is stated that original defendant No.2 Narendra has obtained a fake sale deed from present appellant No.1 Kalabai on 15.12.2007 in respect of land Gat No.67 showing consideration of Rs.3.00 lakhs and thus by obtaining such sale deed, taking advantage of the old age of the mother, other brothers and sisters are deprived of their legitimate rights in respect of the suit property. It is true that the said plea has to be examined and it has to be decided whether the document was genuine or it was a bogus document obtained with a view to deprive other brothers and sisters of their interest. Be that as it may. 6. At this stage, no compelling necessity or situation is shown whereby any sale or creation of third party 4 interest is required. So, the balance of convenience appears to be in favour of the plaintiff. Considering the pleadings of the parties and the reasons given by the learned trial court, I am of the opinion that this is not a case requiring interference in the discretion exercised by the learned judge. 7. At the same time, request of the learned Advocate for the appellants for directions to the trial court for expeditious hearing of the suit is allowed. The trial court shall dispose of the suit at the earliest. 8. With directions as above, Appeal from Order is disposed of. pnd/ao17.10 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) 5