1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7037 OF 1999 Dr.Dhananjay D. Jadhav .. Petitioner versus Smt.Malan @ Malati S. Bhasme & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.P.Thorat for the petitioner. Mr.Tanaji Mhatugade h/f Mr.A.V.Anturkar for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who is the original plaintiff. The respondents are the defendants. 2. The petitioner filed a suit contending that the 1st respondent had let out the suit premises on rental basis to him with effect from 1st July 1996. In the suit premises he was running his dispensary. The case of the petitioner is that he has kept a dental chair, compressor and other equipment in the suit premises. It is contended that the 1st respondent had obtained Agreement of Leave and Licence from the petitioner but did not obtain possession of the suit premises from the petitioner on expiry of period of licence. The allegation is that on 13th February 1999, the 1st respondent locked the suit premises. Therefore, the present suit was filed by the petitioner. An application for temporary mandatory injunction was made by the petitioner. The case of the 1st respondent was that the petitioner has handed over possession of the suit premises to defendants on 10th February 1999. It was contended that only a dental chair and a 2 table was kept by the petitioner in the suit premises as articles were very heavy. It was contended that as the defendants were intending to sell the property, present suit was filed. Application for temporary mandatory injunction filed by the petitioner was allowed by the trial Court and the respondents were directed to remove the lock on the suit premises. Appeal was preferred by the respondents which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and order. 3. It must be stated here that this Court issued rule in the writ petition but no ad- interim or interim relief was granted. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to order dated 7th April 1999 by which trial Court granted police protection to the Court Commissioner who was appointed to implement the order of the trial Court. He submitted that the said order shows that the chair and table of the petitioner were very much in the suit premises. He submitted that there was material on record to show that till the lock was put by the respondents, the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises. He, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Court ought not have interfered with the order of the trial Court. He submitted that even assuming that the respondents have transferred the ownership, the limited relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relied upon the affidavit in reply and in particular the Sale Deed dated 15th March 1999 by which the suit property has been transferred to a third party. Reliance was placed on two Sale Deeds of 15th March 1999 executed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in favour of the third party. He submitted that no interference is called for. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The suit is pending and by the impugned order, the relief of temporary mandatory injunction prayed for by the 3 petitioner was denied. From 10th June 1999 i.e the date of passing impugned order there is no interim or ad-interim relief operating in favour of the petitioner. The suit is pending. Moreover, 1st and 2nd respondents have sold the suit property to third parties way back on 15th March 1999. 6. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at this stage no case is made out for granting temporary mandatory injunction of drastic nature. In fact in the reply filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has already started his practice at Rajgad Dnyanpeeth Bhavan, Bhor. There is no denial of the said statement on oath filed in the reply. 7. In a suit of the year 1999, at this stage no case is made out for granting temporary mandatory injunction. Hence, no interference is called for. However, it is made clear that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open and the trial Court will decide the suit on its own merits. Liberty to the petitioner to apply to the trial Court for impleading purchasers as party defendants to the suit. 8. Subject to what is observed above, petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA,J)