1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2446 OF 2010 1 Raghunath s/o Bhaurao Chavan, age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Sobalgaon, Taluka Khultabad, District Aurangabad. 2 Karbhari s/o Bhaurao Chavan, age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Sobalgaon, Taluka Khultabad, District Aurangabad. 3 Santram s/o Bhaurao Chavan, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Sobalgaon, Taluka Khultabad, District Aurangabad. Petitioners Versus 1 Mrs.Bhagubai w/o Kacharu Kale, age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Padali, Taluka Khultabad, District Aurangabad. 2 Mrs.Sakhubai w/o Laxman Gaikwad, age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Daregaon, Taluka Khultabad, District Aurangabad. Respondents Mr.J.S.Gavane, advocate for petitioners. Mr.L.D.Vakil, advocate for Respondents. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25th March, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard Shri J.S.Gavane, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri L.D.Vakil, learned Counsel for Respondents. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 2 An order of temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs by the trial Court while entertaining application tendered below Exhibit-5 and said order passed by the trial Court has been reversed by the first appellate Court while dealing with Misc. Civil Appeal No.199/2009. Original plaintiffs are raising exception to the said order dated 05.03.2010 passed by first appellate Court reversing the order passed by trial Court. 3 I have perused the order passed by first appellate Court. The reasons recorded by the first appellate Court while dealing with Misc. Civil Appeal cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. Plaintiffs seek to place reliance on the decree passed in earlier litigation, which is based on compromise. The terms contained in paragraphs no.2 & 3 of the compromise decree needs to be interpreted on consideration of all other 3 relevant circumstances. It is a matter of consideration for the trial Court after receiving evidence that would be led by the parties to the litigation. 4 Respondents have presented an affidavit-in-reply and have placed on record copies of 7/12 extracts. 7/12 extracts show names of Respondents - original defendants in ownership as well as possession columns since 1983-84 till the year 2008-2009. Reliance is also placed on the copies of receipts in respect of payment of land revenue placed on record. I am of the view that the judgment recorded by the first appellate Court do not call for any interference. 5 However, so far as order passed by the trial Court directing defendants / respondents not to create third party interest is concerned, same is required to be maintained. Considering the fact that dispute in respect of entitlement of plaintiffs to the property in question is pending consideration before the trial Court, the parties to the litigation are not expected to create third party interest during pendency of litigation, which is likely add to the complications. In this view of the matter, defendants/Respondents need to be restrained by an order of injunction from creating third party interest during pendency of litigation. Petition 4 presented by petitioners requires to be considered favourably to that extent. 6 In this view of the matter, Respondents/defendants are restrained by an order of injunction from creating third party interest during pendency of suit before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously. 7 Rule is made absolute in above terms. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE adb/wp244610