: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.486 OF 2008 IN SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.3424 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.562 OF 2008 Santosh Balkrishna Chavan ..Appellant Vs. Santosh Sitaram Chavan & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.A.M. Saraogi for the Appellant. Mr.Paresh S. Madkaikar for Respondent no.1. Mr.A.K.Singh i/b.M/s.Lex Remedeum for Respondent no.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The impugned order warrants no interference per-se. 2. It is difficult at this stage to check without evidence, or to express any final opinion upon the authenticity and the effect of the alleged documents relied upon by Respondent no.1 whereby the Appellant is alleged to have transferred/given up his rights in the suit premises. The fact is that the first Respondent is in possession of the suit premises. : 2 : 3. I see no reason to disturb the same at the interim stage. It is however necessary that the rights of both the parties are protected pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. 4. In the circumstances, the impugned order is modified to provide that Respondent no.1 will not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party rights in respect of the suit premises without the leave of the Court pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. 5. The Appeal from Order is disposed of accordingly. Nothing survives in the Civil Application which is also disposed of as such. ***