**1** IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.872/2008 Nivruti Gopala Nikalje. ....Petitioner -VERSUS- Vijay Vishnu Nikalje and others. ......Respondents ........... Mr.G.S.Godbole, Advocate i/b Ms.Pallavi Dabholkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.1 to 5, 17, 20 to 23. Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No.22. ........... CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. Dated : 14th October, 2009. P.C. : 1 I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondents are the original Defendants. The Petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the suit properties more particularly described in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. An application for temporary injunction was made by the Petitioner restraining the Respondents from creating any third party interests and from obstructing the alleged possession of the Petitioner. By the judgment and order dated 03.03.2007 the learned Trial Judge allowed the said application and granted temporary injunction as prayed for. An appeal was preferred by the original Defendants Nos.1 to 5 and 16 to 23 before **2** the District Court. The appeal has been allowed by the learned District Judge. 3 On 08.02.2008 this Court issued notice for final disposal at admission stage and directed the parties to maintain status-quo until further orders. 4 The learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the pleadings and findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. He submitted that the Appellate Court has committed an error by interfering with discretionary order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court. 5 The learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment and order. 6 I have considered the submissions. Perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge shows that the suit properties described in paragraph Nos.1-A and 1-C were originally owned by the Petitioner’s grand-father Raghu Nikalje who was having two sons Gopala and Tukaram. After demise of Raghu, the name of Petitioner’s father Gopala was shown as “karta” of the joint family. Tukaram filed a suit for partition bearing RCS No.422/1959. It was held in the suit that the said Gopala and Tukaram were having half share each in the suit property which was originally owned by Raghu and rest of the properties were held to be self acquired properties of the Petitioner’s father. The decree passed in the said suit was modified by the District Court by holding that Tukaram was entitled to half share in house property bearing Gat No. 153. 7 It must be stated here that even the original Defendant No. 24 filed a suit for partition against the Plaintiff and the Defendants Nos. 1 to 23. The said suit was dismissed and dismissal of the suit was **3** confirmed by the District Court. 8 After considering all these aspects, the learned Trial Judge granted temporary injunction in favour of the Petitioner. The said order of temporary injunction operated during the pendency of appeal preferred by the contesting Respondents. There is an order passed by this Court while issuing notice directing the parties to maintain status- quo. The suit is pending and therefore, considering the findings recorded by the Courts below, ad-interim order passed by this Court deserves to be continued till final disposal of the suit. 9 Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order:- (1) Impugned judgment and order is modified and it is directed that ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 08.02.2008 will continue to operate till final disposal of the suit. (2) All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are expressly kept open. -sd- [A.S. OKA, J.] kps