IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 400 OF 2007. FROM ORDER NO. 400 OF 2007. FROM ORDER NO. 400 OF 2007. Kiran Madanlal Bardia. ... Appellant. Versus. Sau.Mangala Satishchandra Giwal and others. ... Respondents. Shri Suresh M.Sabrad for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 6th June, 2007. : 6th June, 2007. : 6th June, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original Defendant No.1 in a suit for partition and separate possession filed by the Respondents Nos.1 to 6 therein. The Respondent Nos.7 to 12 are the other Defendants. The suit is for partition and separate possession of the immoveable properties. The Appellant/1st Defendant claims to be a bonafide purchaser of some of the suit properties from the contesting Defendants in the suit. 2. By the impugned order dated 17th February 2007, the Applications at Exhs.5 and 20 made by the original Plaintiffs were decided. The Application at Exh.5 was for injunction restraining the original Defendants Nos.6 and 7 from paying any rent or license fee to the Appellant. The Application at Exh.20 was for injunction restraining the Appellant from creating any charge on the suit property. By the impugned order, the Application at Exh.5 has been rejected. However, the : 2 : 2 : 2 : application at Exh.20 has been allowed and a temporary injunction has been granted against the Appellant restraining him from creating any charge over the suit property. 3. After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant, I find that no case is made out for interference with the discretionary order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court. The Appellant claims to be a bonafide purchaser of the suit properties. Evidence is yet to be led in the suit for deciding whether the Appellant can claim to be a bonafide purchaser. A very limited relief has been granted which prohibits the Appellant from creating any charge on the suit properties. Pending a suit for general partition, the learned trial Judge was justified in passing a limited interim order by allowing the application at Exh.20. 4. The discretionary order passed by the trial Court is not shown to be either perverse or illegal. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed. Hearing of the suit is expedited. It is made clear that the suit will be decided without being influenced by any prima facie observations made in this order. Judge. Judge. Judge.