1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3716 OF 2010 Sopan Rambhau Mashere & Others ...Petitioners Versus Dyandeo Daulat Pathare & Others ...Respondents Mr.K.S.Dewal for the Petitioner Mr.N.V.Walawalkar i/b/ Vilas Tapkir for the Respondents CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 11th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.245 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ghodnadi, District Pune, for possession in respect of the land which was held to be in their favour, pursuant to the earlier litigation. In the said suit the petitioners filed application for interim injunction restraining the respondent nos.1 and 2 from creating third 2 party rights etc. That application was granted in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 15.7.2008. That order became subject matter of challenge in Misc. Civil Appeal No.256 of 2008. The learned District Judge-2, Pune by his Judgment and Order dated 20.3.2010 set aside the order below Exhibit 5 and vacated the ad- interim relief which was granted earlier. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. I have perused the impugned order in order to find out whether the petitioners could apply for order of injunction that respondents should not create third party rights. Accordingly, it became necessary for the court to point out on the basis of the averments set out in the plaint whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case that they apprehended that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are likely to create third party rights. My attention was drawn by the learned Advocate for the petitioners to paragraph 4 and 5 of the plaint. A perusal of the said para 4 goes to indicate that according to the petitioners, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are leveling the entire plot of land in which the petitioners have share to the extent of 10 Are. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the leveling which is being done is with a intention to 3 dispose of the said plot. I am not inclined to accept this submission. The leveling of plot of land and creating third party rights are two different aspects. Merely because the plot is being levelled, that does not mean that the respondent no.1 is intending to create third party rights. The averments in para 4 are insufficient to come to the conclusion that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are creating third party rights. 3. Attention of court was also drawn to para 5 where the petitioners have alleged that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are advertising the sale of the land by dividing them into plots. If this was the averment in the plaint, it was necessary for the petitioners to produce the advertisement which they seem to have come across. In the absence of such production of an advertisement, I am not inclined to accept the stand of petitioners that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are likely to create third party rights. If this is the position, the learned District Judge was right in refusing the order of injunction. 4. It is hereby clarified that if in future, the petitioners apprehend that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are likely to create third party rights, it 4 will be open for the petitioners to make application depending upon the facts and circumstances. 5. In view of the above, petition is dismissed at admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)