1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 600 OF 2009 WITH CIVI L APPLICATION NO.746 OF 2009 Santosh Madhukar Gaikwad & Ors. .....Appellants Versus Abhijit Govind Gaikwad & Ors. .....Respondents. Mr. Amit B. Borkar for the Appellants. Mr. G. S. Godbole with Mr. Nitin Mulye for the Respondent No.1 & Mr. Siddharth Range, Advocate for Respondent No.17. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C.: Heard Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 17. 2. The Appellants are the original plaintiffs. They have filed suit for partition and possession. They have also claimed declaration that the compromise decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.313 of 1991 is not binding on them. Temporary Application was filed for injunction restraining the Respondent No.17 from carrying on construction in CTS No.1879 and/or creating third party interest in the suit property. This application was rejected by the Trial Court and therefore, the present Appeal from Order. 3. Temporary injunction is claimed in respect of CTS No.1879 area of which is 138 sq. mtrs.. Assuming that the case of the Appellant/Original Plaintiffs is true, in that case also they are not entitled to more than 29 sq.mtrs. 2 The compromise decree was passed in the year 1995 pursuant to the Consent Terms at Exhibit “33” in Regular Civil Appeal No.313 of 1991. Admittedly, in pursuance of the compromise decree, mutation entries were effected and CTS No.1879 was shown in the name of Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 sold this property to Respondent No.17 who is carrying out construction in the suit property. The present suit is filed after a period of twelve years. The statement of Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel, that the construction has come up to second slab is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. The Appellants in case succeeds in the suit, can be compensated in terms of money. Even the equities can be worked out in this regard, at the time of final decree. 4. Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel, makes a statement that Respondent No.17 will mention the fact about pendency of the present suit in an agreement with the prospective purchaser. The statement is accepted. Taking over all view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the interest of Appellants/Original Plaintiffs is protected. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere in the Appeal from Order. The Appeal from Order is dismissed, accordingly. 5. Needless to mention that third party interest, if any, created by the Respondents during the pendency of the suit, is always subject to final outcome of the suit. 6. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.746 of 2009 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)