1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.92 OF 2009 (RATNAPRABHA SUNDERLAL VERMA....Vs..RAI UDYOG LTD..) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.G.Karmarkar, Advocate for Appellant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 01, 2009. 1. This appeal is directed against rejection by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur of appellant’s application for injunction to restrain defendant No.14 from demolishing the suit property and changing the nature of the suit property. 2. The appellants are widow and children of one Sunderlal who was son of Raghuvir Singh Verma. The property in question is a house at Nagpur which, even according to the plaintiff, is self acquired property of Raghuvir Singh. Raghuvir Singh left behind nine heirs, his children and widow. Thus, the appellants would have 1/9th share in the property left behind by Sunderlal. They had filed a suit for, among other things, relief of partition and separate possession of their share in the properties. During pendency of the suit defendant No.1 sold the property to defendant No.14 and therefore, the plaintiffs were required to file an application for injunction. 2 3. After considering the defences raised, the learned trial Judge rejected the application, holding that the plaintiffs had not made out prima-facie case. The Will of Raghuvir Singh dated 17th November, 1983 was also referred to. This Will had been registered in the office of Sub- Registrar. Raghuvir Singh died on 28th October, 2008. By this Will the property in question had been given by him to defendants No.1 and 2, one of whom had conveyed the same to defendant No.14. 4. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to be an erroneous exercise of discretion and jurisdiction vested in the learned Civil Judge, calling for any interference in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.