1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 40 OF 2009 Smt. Urmila Sud........Appellant versus Ashok Rattanlal Sud & anr......... Respondents. Mr. Bharat Zaveri i/bS.G. Lakhani adv. for the Appellant Mr. N.D. Jaywant adv. for the respondent no.1. Mr. K.S. Shetty adv. for respondent no.2. CORAM: A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 16th FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: 1. This appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. The plaintiff is mother of the defendant and has instituted a suit for injunction simplicitor with a view to restrain the defendant from interfering with the family business. Various objetions were raised touching the merit of the matter such as, no injunction can be granted against a co-owner, that a suit simpliitor for injunction would not be maintainable in the absence of a prayer for partition and that the suit is bad for non joinder of other co-owners. The lower court has rejected the prayer for ad- interim relief so also dismissed the Notice of Motion. 2 2. Perused the order. To the extent it refuses the interim relief the same cannot be faulted with. However, the learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited prayer and the same is to the effect that the Notice of Motion be restored. To substantiate this prayer, it is categorically averred in the appeal and so contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit was fixed for hearing on ad-interim relief, however by the impugned order Notice of Motion itself has been dismissed. The said fact has not been disputed. If that be so, the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in contending that the dismissal of the Notice of Motion is in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording an opportnity of hearing to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that he can make an appropriate application before the trial court during pendency of the Notice of Motion and implead the other co-owners as party defendants so that the technical defect could be rectified. Without going into the merit of the matter, suffice to pointing out that the trial court is not justified in dismissing the notice of motion when the suit was fixed for hearing on ad-interim relief. Hence indulgence need to be shown in this appeal only to the extent of setting aside the order dismissing the Notice of Motion, It is made clear that the order rejecting ad-interim relief is not interfered with. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order to the extent it 3 dismisses the Notice of Motion is quashed and set aside. Notice of Motion is restored to file. The court below shall poceed to decide the same in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned. (A. P. DESHPANDE, J.)