1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR A.O.NO.103 OF 2009. Mohd.Ashfaque s/o Mohd.Iliyas and ors. .vs.. Shabbir Ahmad Mukhyra Ahmad and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.S.Chauhan, Adv. for the appellants. Mr.A.M.Ghare, Adv. for resp.no.1 and 2. C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J. DATED : 4th January, 2010. 1. By order dated 4th August, 2009, this appeal was directed to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself. Notice of the appeal is served upon the respondents. 2. This appeal arises from interim order dated 3/11/2007, passed by 2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur on an application for temporary injunction in Spl.Civil Suit No.127 of 2005. By impugned order, the application filed by the respondents was allowed and appellants have been restrained from disturbing possession of the respondents over the suit property. The appellants were also restrained from creating third party rights over the 2 same. The suit filed by the respondents is for declaration that the sale-deed dated 7th January, 2005 executed by appellant no.1 in favour of appellant no.2 is illegal and void ab initio and for perpetual injunction to restrain the appellants from disturbing possession of the respondents over the suit property. The respondents also sought permanent injunction restraining the appellants from creating any third party rights over the suit property. The interim relief sought by the appellants was in the same terms as the permanent injunctions. 3. The record shows that appellant no.1 had filed a suit bearing R.C.S.No.696 of 2004 against the respondents which is pending. The said suit was for partition of suit property claiming one-half share therein and for its possession. Learned trial judge has taken into consideration this circumstance to hold that the respondents are admittedly in possession of the suit property. Perusal of the plaint in R.C.S.No.696 of 2004, which is annexed to the present appeal proceedings, bears out the admission. Hence, no fault can be found with this prima facie finding by the learned trial judge. As regards the second relief of interim injunction, no fault can be found with the either because appellant no.1 has already created third party rights over the suit property, i.e. in favour of appellant no.1, which would prima facie support the apprehension in the minds of the 3 respondents that the property may be further transferred. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE. chute