IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.99 OF 2009. 1 Lalitabai w/o Kisan Prasad, aged 58 years, occu. Household, r/o Aland, Taluka Phulambri, District Aurangabad and others. .. APPELLANTS. VERSUS 1 Shobha w/o Lalmani Mishra, aged 39 years, occu. Household, r/o Raigad Colony, CIDCO, Aurangabad and another. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri Ambar S. Barlota,Advocate for appellants. Shri Bhushan Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 9th September, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This appeal from order takes exception to the order dated 15th July, 2009 passed by the C.J.S.D., Aurangabad below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.147 of 2006. 2. The respondent herein is original plaintiff who filed suit for declaration that the partition deed is a false document and further for partition and separate possession along with an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property, during pendency of the suit. The said application was heard by the learned trial Court and the same was allowed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that no prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff to entertain the application for temporary injunction. Merely because no affidavit was filed, that by itself cannot be a ground to entertain the application for temporary injunction. The learned Counsel further invited my attention to the description of the property and contended that one shop of 100 sq.ft. Was allotted to the respondent and she is in possession of the said shop. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that this Court may set aside the order dated 15th July, 2009 passed by the trial Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent submitted that the part of the property was purchased from the amount of maintenance since at the relevant time, respondent no.1 was divorcee. He also placed reliance on the findings recorded by the trial Court and submitted that equitable order has been passed by the trial Court and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with the same. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that part of the property was purchased from the maintenance amount of respondent No.1 is not pleaded in the suit. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the reported judgment of this Court in case of Chandrashekhar Sidramappa Chinchansure v. Bhaurao Sidramappa Chinchansure & others (1983(1) Bom.C.R. 507) and more particularly, Head Note (C) and submitted that once the properties are partitioned, it cannot be reopened. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The limited point which is required to be considered in this appeal from order is whether the order passed by the trial Court on an application filed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property is justified in law or not. The parties to this appeal may have case to argue in the main suit on other aspects. I have carefully perused the order passed by the trial Court. The Court has recorded in its judgment that no affidavit was filed by the present appellants. The court has observed that in case application for temporary injunction is not entertained, then it will create complications in the matter and it would prejudice interest of the respondent. While passing the impugned order, it clearly appears that in para 4 the Court has framed necessary points for its determination and after taking into consideration the rival submissions, the Court has passed the equitable order. The respondent is daughter of appellant no.1 and sister of appellants no.2, 3, and 4. This relationship is not in dispute. 8. In my opinion, perusal of the judgment and order of the trial Court clearly demonstrates that the Court has recorded the reasons in support of its order. Nothing has been brought to the notice that the finding recorded by the trial Court is not in consonance with the pleadings of the parties. This apart, after all granting injunction or refusing injunction is discretion of the concerned Court. In the facts of this case, the trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion and granted relief in favour of the respondent. It is also relevant to mention that the suit itself is fixed for evidence before the trial Court. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 15th July, 2009 passed by the trial Court. The appeal from order is without any substance and the same is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*