1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Appeal against Order No.59 of 2009 Babulal s/o Nathulal Agrawal, aged 61 years, Occupation – Business, R/o 615, Ghat Road, Nagpur. ... Appellant/ Ori. Plaintiff Versus 1. Suresh s/o Bhaiyalal Dharwal (Chorgade), Aged 55 years, Occupation – Business, R/o 658, Dharwal Bhavan, Nagpur. 2. Smt. Indu w/o Anup Somgade, Aged – Major, R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Patel Colony, Saunsar, District Chindwara. 3. Smt. Pushpa w/o Shamsundar Dharwal, Aged – Major, R/o Ruddhra Complex, Koradi Road, Mankapur, Nagpur. 4. Smt. Chhaya w/o Sanjay Chaudhari, Aged – Major, R/o Chitij Apartment, 2 Khadakpara, Barve Road, Flat No.A/104, Kalyan, Mumbai. 5. Smt. Rama w/o Arun Jhunjhunwala, Aged – Major, R/o Anand Palace, Flat No.102, Dhantoli, Nagpur. ... Respondentd/ Ori. Defendants Shri R.R. Srivastava, Advocate for Appellants. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATED : 16th June, 2009 Oral Order : 1. This appeal is directed against the rejection of appellants’ application for injunction to restrain the defendants from creating any third party interest and raising any construction and for direction to the defendants to place the plaintiff in possession. 2. The plaintiff had been allowed to run business known as M/s. Madan Engineering Works, which was run by one Leelabai. After the death of Leelabai, her daughter, defendant No.5, surrendered the tenancy of 3 the business in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff was dispossessed by defendant No.1 and, therefore, filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession. In the said suit, he filed an application for being placed in possession of the property and and for restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest and changing the nature of the property, which was rejected by the impugned order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Sarladevi widow of Kundanlal Bandawar, Dharampeth, Nagpur v. Shailesh s/o Gourishankar Namdeo Tilaknagar, Nagpur, reported at AIR 1996 Bombay 98. In that case, this Court held that a person in possession can claim injunction against everyone including the original owner. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs. v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, reported at AIR 1989 SC 2097, where too it was held that a person in settled possession of the property cannot be dispossessed even by real owner except by recourse to law. 4 4. In the present case, the plaintiff approached the Court only because he was dispossessed. He cannot be granted relief by way of interim injunction, which would take the colour of final relief itself, which has been sought in the suit. Therefore, as far as the injunction for being placed in possession is concerned, it was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Creation of third-party interest can also be taken care of by the plaintiff registering the lis. Therefore, since the plaintiff’s interest would be secured by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act by his registering the lis, there is no question of restraining the respondents by an injunction. 5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 6. It need not be mentioned that the learned Trial Judge would dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, since it is a suit required to be summarily decided. JUDGE Lanjewar