: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.88 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.138 OF 2010 Nazir Abdullah Inamdar & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Farooq Moosa Inamdar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for the Appellants. Mr. Rahul S. Kate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order has been preferred against the order dated 21st August, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati, below Exhibit No.5 in Special Civil Suit No.61 of 2008, by which the appellants have been restrained from transferring or alienating the suit properties which stand in their names till the disposal of the Suit. 2. Mr. Sadavarte appearing for the appellants takes exception to this order by submitting that : 2 : the respondents had sought the aforesaid order only against defendant Nos.1 to 5, i.e. the appellants herein, when the present Suit was filed for partition between several other parties as well. He submits that the plaintiffs ought to have instead sought an injunction against all the defendants. 3. This submission of Mr. Sadavarte cannot be accepted. It is for the plaintiffs to decide against whom they should seek relief. The appellants-defendants cannot in any manner dictate to the plaintiffs that they should seek an order against the other defendants as well. 4. The other contention raised by Mr. Sadavarte is that the concept of joint family property is alien to Mohammedan Law. Admittedly, the parties belong to the Islamic faith and, therefore, this concept, according to Mr. Sadavarte, ought not to have influenced the learned Judge to pass the impugned order. : 3 : 5. In my opinion, this submission is also unsustainable. The suit property, being Gat No.2060, is mutated in the name of appellants- defendant Nos.1 to 5 and they claim it to be their personal property. As against this, the plaintiffs’ contention is that it is the family property. In view of these rival contentions, the trial Court has directed that appellants-defendant Nos.1 to 5 shall not create any third party rights in respect of this property. This order has obviously been passed to protect the property pending the trial. 6. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere in the matter. 7. The Appeal from Order is dismissed. 8. In view of the above, Civil Application No.138 of 2010 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. .......