1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 541 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 3183 OF 2008 Jayesh Mohan Krishnani & Ors. ... ...Appellants. Versus Mohan Tahilram Krishnani & Ors. ... ... ...Respondents. Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Sr. Counsel with Mrs. Varsha Palav i/by M/s. YKS Legal for the Appellants. Mr. Charanjit Chandarpal for the Respondents. CORAM : P. B. MAJMUDAR and ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2010. P. C.: This is an unfortunate litigation between son on one side and parents on other side. The respondents herein, who are the parents of the present appellant No.1 Jayesh Mohan Krishnani, instituted a suit being Suit No. 3183 of 2008. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 is a son and defendant No.2 is their daughter-in-law. Defendant No.3 in the suit is the other son of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is HUF property and defendant No.1 son since not behaving properly with the parents, the suit has been filed to decree the share of defendant Nos.1 2 and 2 in the suit flat and to claim injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2 restraining their entry in the premises. It is not in dispute that the suit flat is a HUF property of the parties. According to the plaintiffs they want to pay off the share of defendant No.1 as he is creating nuisance while residing in the suit premises. 2. A Notice of Motion No. 541 of 2009 was also pressed into service for interim order. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order directed the plaintiffs to pay deficit court fees of Rs.3 lakhs and passed an order that the Prothonotary and Senior Master shall appoint valuer from the panel of the valuers of the Court. The valuer will determine the value of the suit flat. The learned Single Judge also further held that upon the plaintiffs paying off defendant No.1, 1/3rd of the said valuation, defendant Nos.1 and 2 shall not enter upon the suit premises or create any nuisance therein in future. It is the aforesaid order, which is impugned in the present appeal at the instance of defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are son and daughter-in-law. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sakhare, appearing for the appellants, vehemently submitted that unless an appropriate decree is passed by the learned Single Judge, such an order which amounts to eviction of the appellants from the premises, is not sustainable. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sakhare further submitted that against the ad-interim order passed by this 3 Court on 27th April, 2010 regarding maintenance of status quo, the respondents/original plaintiffs have preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and it was dismissed but the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the suit within six months from the receipt of the order from the Supreme Court. The said order is placed on record. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Charanjit Chandarpal, appearing for the respondents/original plaintiffs i.e. parents of present appellants, vehemently submitted that the son and daughter-in-law of the respondents are creating nuisance. They are not paying electricity dues even though they are residing in the suit premises. Not only that even they instituted criminal proceedings against the parents under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which resulted into arrest of the parents for five days. As pointed out above, it is unfortunate family dispute. Though the learned Single Judge has given some reasons for passing impugned order, we feel that so far as the order regarding injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from entering into the premises is concerned, is an order which can be passed at the time of final disposal of the suit and not at such an interlocutory stage. 5. Learned Counsel Mr. Charanjit Chandarpal, appearing for the respondents / original plaintiffs, submitted that the plaintiffs have also taken out separate chamber summons in the suit praying for a decree for partition. 4 It is for the learned Single Judge to consider as to whether the decree for partition can be passed on admission of the parties appearing in the suit. 6. It is not in dispute that the flat in question is an HUF property. Considering the said aspect, the learned Single Judge, as per the order of the Supreme Court may dispose of the suit within a period of six months as observed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 15390 of 2010. In the meanwhile, the present appellants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court every month on or before the 10th day of every month commencing from 10th November, 2010 which the present respondent Nos.1 and 2 will be entitled to withdraw and utilise the same for the purpose of meeting the electricity charges and other maintenance charges in connection with the flat in question. On behalf of the appellants an undertaking is also filed, which is taken on record for paying proportionate electricity charges. The said undertaking is taken on record. However, with a view to see that there is no other dispute taken up by the parties, we direct that in compliance with the undertaking, the appellants shall deposit Rs.5,000/- per month commencing from 10th November, 2010 with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. The appellant No.1 – Jayesh Mohan Krishnani, who is present in court and he has been identified by his Advocate Mrs. Varsha Palav, states 5 that the amount in question will be regularly paid on or before the 10th day of every month till the suit is finally decided. The said oral undertaking is accepted. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are given liberty to withdraw the said amount unconditionally. 7. Since the scope of the proceeding being very narrow, learned Single Judge is requested to decide the suit within six months as observed by the Supreme Court and the learned Single Judge may also consider the aspect about passing preliminary decree. Both the sides have agreed that they will co-operate with the early hearing of the suit. It is needless to say that the appellants shall not try to create any nuisance and will act and reside in the flat in question in a peaceful manner. 8. The order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal is modified to the extent aforesaid. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 9. In view of the rejection of the appeal itself, the Notice of Motion No. 541 of 2009 does not survive and is disposed of as such. Sd/- (P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.) Sd/- (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)