IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6698 OF 2008 Smt.Kamal Keshav Garud & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shri Dilip Maruti Vanzari & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.T.D.Deshmukh for Petitioners. Mr.N.J.Patil for Respondents 1 & 2A to 2C. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 20, 2009. MARCH 20, 2009. MARCH 20, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Patil waives notice for Respondents 1 and 2A to 2C. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of : 2 : the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the District Judge 1, Karad dated 19th June 2007 in Misc.Civil Appeal Nos.48/2007 and 49/2007. 5. During the hearing, however, the Petitioners have confined the challenge only to the order passed below Exhibit 41 by the Trial Court which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. In other words, the limited challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the Trial Court dated 25th April 2007 below Exhibit 41 which allows the Application preferred by the Defendants and restrains the Petitioners/Plaintiffs from causing obstruction temporarily to the peaceful possession and vahivat of the Defendants over the suit property. The grievance made by the Petitioners is a pure question of law. 6. The question is: whether such an injunction could have been granted by the Civil Court at the instance of Defendants which is not ascribable to Clause (a) of Rule 1 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure. The said clause takes : 3 : within its scope order with regard to any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree. Such issue could be pressed even by the Defendants for inviting interim order in the pending Suit against them. However, the relief which has been granted by the Trial Court below Exhibit 41 is to restrain the Plaintiffs from causing obstruction temporarily to the peaceful possession and vahivat of the Defendants over the suit property which is obviously outside the scope of Clause (a) of Rule 1. Having regard to the Scheme of Rule 1, it is obvious that Clauses (b) and (c) are available only to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants cannot claim relief which is ascribable to those provisions. Thus understood, the order passed by the Civil Court below Exhibit 41 is clearly untenable. 7. It would be a different matter if the Defendants were to file independent Suit and ask for appropriate relief in the said Suit where the Defendants could have legitimately asked for injunction against the Plaintiffs who would be : 4 : Defendants in the said Suit. 8. Accordingly this Petition is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Order is set aside. However, the parties shall maintain status-quo as of today for a period of four weeks to enable the Defendants to take recourse to such remedy as may be permissible by law. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.