1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 7. WP/8733/2009 (MAZHAR KHAN ZAFAR KHAN V/S AMANULLKHAN JAFAR KHAN & OTHERS) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.Prashant K.Deshmukh, Adv., & Mr.S.K.Kulkarni, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 6. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:5/10/2010 ... 1. Regular Civil Suit No. 552/2004 was filed by the petitioner. Injunction in terms of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure was showered. Petitioner felt that it was breached and, consequently, desired for action in terms of Order 39 Rule 2(A) of C.P.C. by making an application M.A.(R) No.30/2006. On evaluation of the evidence and documents, the learned Judge did not agree to the contentions raised by the plaintiff 2 petitioner and dismissed the M.A., same is questioned in the writ petition. 2. Mr.S.K.Kulkarni, learned Counsel, has rightly pointed out the legal position, Order 43 Rule 1 sub clause (4) by Bombay Amendment of C.P.C.has excluded Rule 2-A and, consequently writ would be maintainable. 3. Learned Counsel representing the respondents pointed out that the very suit being against co-owners, being a suit for perpetual injunction, was dismissed. This position is not controverted. There may be another litigation pending seeking partition, however, this Court need not to brood on the said events. The fact indicates, it has been accepted by the petitioner that the land was barren. Some event may have ostensibly taken place, however, that would not tantamount to sheer breach of injunction which was prevailing 3 in favour of the plaintiff. The observation of the learned Judge does not call for any interference. No illegality is surfaced. Writ Petition lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. The observations would be restricted to the extent of present controversy and will not be used in the ongoing controversy. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/8733-09wp