-: 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. 235 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 235 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 235 OF 2009 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 2009 IN IN IN A.O. NO. 235 OF 2009 A.O. NO. 235 OF 2009 A.O. NO. 235 OF 2009 Shri Vijaykumar Jagadishchandra Agarwal & Others. .. Appellants. V/s. Shri Govind Digamber Deshpande & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. G. S. Godbole a/w.Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for the Appellants. Mr. M.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Advocte a/w. Mr. R.D.Soni i/by M/s.Ram and Co. for the Respondent nos. 3 to 3(c) and 4. ---- WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 531 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 531 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 531 OF 2009 IN IN IN A.O. NO. 235 OF 2009 A.O. NO. 235 OF 2009 A.O. NO. 235 OF 2009 Samruddhi Promoter Builder, A partnership .. Applicants. Firm, through its partners : 1. Shri Vinayak Mahadev Nimhan & Ors. V/s. Shri Vijaykumar Jagadishchandra Agarwal & Others. .. Respondents. --- Mr. M.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Advocate a/w. Mr. R.D.Soni i/by M/s. Ram & co. for the Applicants. Mr. G. S. Godbole a/w.Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for the Respondents. -: 2 :- ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 06th MAY, 2009 DATED : 06th MAY, 2009 DATED : 06th MAY, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. The appellants are original plaintiffs. They filed special civil suit no. 467 of 2008 against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for declaration that the alleged sale deed executed by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.3 is illegal, fraudulent, false and the same is not binding on the appellants. They also claimed prohibitory injunction against the respondents from interferring in the appellants’ possession over the suit property. Further prohibitory injunction was also claimed against the respodents from creating third party interest in the suit property. 2. The appellants during the pendency of the above suit filed application at Exh. ‘5’ for temoprary injunction for restraining respondents from interferring the appellants’ possession in the suit property. The appellants also filed similar application at Exh. ‘35’. Both these applications came to be disposed of by the common order dated 02.12.2008 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune, whereby both the applications of the appellants came to be rejected. This order is challenged in the present appeal. -: 3 :- 3. The learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to para 19 of the plaint which is about valuation cost of the suit. Perusal of para 19 shows that the appellants have valued the suit cost at Rs.1000/-. In view of this valuation cost, as shown in para 19 of the plaint, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Appeal will lie to the District Court. The learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute this position. 4. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the office is, therefore, directed to return the Appeal Memo with civil applications i.e. C.A. No. 275/2009 and C.A.531/2009 alongwith Annexures thereto to the appellants in order to enable the appellants to present the same before the District Court. 5. Order accordingly. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....