1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.499 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 574 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.499 OF 2008 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 44 OF 2010 Sachin Srirang Hulawale & Ors. ... Appellants. Versus Ganpat Maruti Hylawale & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for the Appellants. Mr. S.J. Raikar i/b Mr. Narendra C. Walimbe for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : J.H. Bhatia, J. DATED : March 25, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 The Plaintiffs-Appellants filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the joint family property and also sought the declaration for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant No.11. Plaintiffs filed an Application-Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from creating third party interest pending the suit. The Defendants contended that the partition had taken place some time in the year 2000 and the parties are already in occupation of their separate portions of the land. After hearing the parties, the trial court rejected the application Exhibit 5. 2 3 On hearing the parties and perusal of the relevant material before this Court, it appears that there are in all 11 lands in different survey numbers and the total area may be more than 9 hectares of the land. Out of that 2 acres land has been sold away by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant No.11. The trial court after considering the arguments and written documents came to conclusion that prima facie partition appears to have been effected. The learned counsel for the Respondents points out that so far no construction has been made on the 2 acres of land sold to Defendant No.11. However, Defendant No.2 and 3 are making some construction on a portion of land in their possession. The plaintiffs claimed ¼th share in whole of the property. The suit for partition is pending and according to the Plaintiffs, the parties are in possession of different portions only as a family arrangement and not on the basis of any partition. These aspects cannot be finally decided at the time of deciding the Application-Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction or in Appeal against the same. That will require full fledged trial and evidence of both the parties. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the following order will meet the ends of justice in the given circumstances. 4 The trial court shall expedite the hearing and shall dispose of the Special Civil Suit No. 545 of 2006 as early as possible and preferably by 31st December, 2010. Meanwhile, no further construction shall be commenced, however, the construction which is already in progress need 3 not be stopped. In case, the suit is decreed, in execution of that decree as far as possible, the land already sold away to Defendant No.11 may be allotted to the share of Vendor Defendant No.1 and the land on which the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are making construction may be allotted to their share. None of the parties shall create any further third party interest from this day onwards till decision of the suit. 5 As Appeal itself is disposed of, Civil Application No. 574 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 6 Contempt Petition No. 44 of 2010 filed by the Appellant has been dismissed for non payment of Bhatta as per the conditional order dated 2nd March, 2010. In view of this order, no further steps shall be taken in the Contempt Petition. (J.H. Bhatia, J.)