1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3336 of 2009 (Sarangdhar V. Dhanokar and others v. Pandurang S. Dhanokar and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.V. Sohoni, Advocate for Petitioners. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 12 th August, 2009 This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned District Judge-II, Akola, modifying an injunction granted by the learned Trial Judge. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge restrained appellant No.1 from conveying any title in plot Nos.26 to 32 and 43 till the revenue appeal is decided, and appellant No.2 from raising any construction till he obtains permission of construction and applies for modification of the order of the Trial Court. Appellant No.1 had developed a layout and had sold certain plots to the petitioners, who are plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.222 of 2009 before 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola. The petitioners claimed that they had 2 purchased these plots at higher price, because they were abutting open spaces. Respondent No.1 subsequently applied to the Tahsildar for an alteration in the layout and had open spaces amalgamated at one place without reducing the area of open spaces. This, however, resulted in open spaces adjacent to the plots of the petitioners getting converted into plots rather than remaining as open spaces. The petitioners, therefore, approached the learned Civil Judge by filing the suit seeking an injunction. The learned Civil Judge, by his order below Exhibit 5, restrained the respondents from transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit site and making any construction over the suit site. On an appeal by the original owner and purchaser, i.e. appellant Nos.1 and 2, the learned District Judge passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that there was any easementary or other right in the petitioners placing a restraint on the enjoyment of the remaining property by the owner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned District Judge was wrong in reducing the restraint imposed by the learned Trial Judge to the extent necessary to secure the interests of the petitioners. The petitioners can always object to the application for permission for construction, which the appellant No.2 may 3 file on whatever grounds as may be available to him. Therefore, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the learned District Judge while modifying the order under appeal was wrong and, therefore, it does not call for any interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl