-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 144 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 144 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 144 OF 2008 Vadhani Industrial Estate Premises Co-op.Society Ltd., .. Petitioners. V/s. 1. Harshadkumar Babulal Vadhani & Ors. ..Respondents. --- Mr.Amit S.Patnis i/by Tamhane & Co.for the Petitioners. Mr. R.M.Haridas for the Respondent No.1. --- CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- . The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 572/919/2005. That is the suit filed by them against the present respondent No.1 and others for possession. The suit property is more particularly described at Exh.‘A’. According to the petitioners/the original plaintiffs, there are some standing structures. Apart from the relief of the possession they sought the relief of permanent injunction against the original defendants and their servants, agents, or persons claiming through them from parting with the possession and/or inducting third party persons and /or from unlawfully sub letting or creating -: 2 :- third party rights or otherwise to dispose of the suit property. In terms of the above relief, an application for temporary injunction was made. That application was decided and the trial court after hearing both sides, was satisfied that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the original plaintiffs as they will suffer irreparable loss, harm and injury. 2. The petitioners are the Societies of Industrial Galas and it is their case that the original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are illegally occupying the suit premises and the original defendant No.1 is earning and profiting at the costs of the plaintiffs. They apprehend that further third party rights would be created in the suit property so as to delay the proceedings and have multiplicity as well. 3. After considering the submission of both the sides, the trial court observed that despite the earlier application for injunction having been rejected, a fresh application is maintainable on account of changed circumstances. Further, the pleas raised by the original defendants that they are entitled to create third party rights, considering clauses and recitals in the agreement was also gone into and thereafter the -: 3 :- trial court granted injunction, restraining the respondents, the original defendants in the above manner. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, the defendants approached the lower appellate court. The appeal of the defendant No.1 is allowed and that is how the original plaintiffs are before me under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing both the sides at some length and considering with their assistance the impugned order, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if no restraint is placed on the defendants, Insofar as recovery of amounts from the existing occupants, the existing occupants can be allowed to continue in occupation so also the first defendant can recover the compensation for the same. However, as and when the occupants vacate the structure and portion thereof in their occupation, the first defendant shall not induct any third party therein nor shall part with the possession of the structure/ portion thereof,by inducting anybody without seeking prior leave /permission of the trial court. This order shall continue during the pendency of the suit. However, as and when any application, seeking leave is filed by the -: 4 :- original defendant No.1, a copy thereof shall be handed over to the plaintiffs Advocate in the trial court and the trial court shall consider such application after hearing both the sides and pass appropriate orders, protecting the subject matter of the litigation. 6. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. The order of the lower appellate court stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs. 7. . All contentions on merits are expressly kept open and the court below to decide the suit uninfluenced by any observations in the impugned order so also workable arrangement made by this court. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J.) .....