1 AO 75/2010. 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.75/2010 (Netaji Bagal and Ors. Vs. Sow. Uma Shinde ) with CA NO.6455/2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SS Choudhari, Adv. For appellants; Mr.Dhananjay Deshpande, Adv. For Resp.No.1; Mr.SS Rathi, Adv. For Resp.Nos. 4 to 9; Mr.SM Vibhute, Adv. For Resp.Nos. 10 to 13. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 3 rd DECEMBER, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) In Special Civil Suit No.75/2008, the plaintiff’s application seeking temporary injunction was granted to the extent of restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the suit properties by any means or from creating third party interest till disposal of the suit. It is pertinent, by the said order, the learned Judge excluded the properties sold under registered sale- deed dated 3rd July, 2000. 3) Though it is canvassed that the properties are already partitioned way back more than 30 years and individual 2 AO 75/2010. parties as per their share are in possession and such restraint would be causing inconvenience to the defendants (petitioners in the appeal), however, I find, whatever would be the transactions that the petitioners/defendants desire to carry, would be subject to outcome of the Special Civil Suit No.75/2008. 4) Consequently, without disturbing the order under challenge dated 9th March, 2010, if the petitioners/defendants move the learned Judge, seized with the matter, with an application to dispose of some part of the properties in favour of the prospective purchaser, the petitioners/defendants are at liberty to make such application, explaining the situation warranting such eventuality and the learned Judge will decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law. For the present, no interference in the order under challenge dated 9.3.2010. 5) The Appeal from Order is disposed of in aforesaid terms with CA. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/