-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 541 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 3183 OF 2008 Mohan Tahilram Krishnani and another .. Appellants versus Jayesh Mohan Krishnani and others .. Respondents Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal for the appellants. Mr. Chirag Shah, instructed by Shri J.J. Shah, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATE: JULY 31, 2009. P.C. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th February, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in the Notice of Motion preferred by the appellants being Notice of Motion No. 541 of 2009. 2. The appellants herein are the original plaintiffs. The aforesaid suit has been filed against the respondents on the ground that they have no right to occupy the suit premises. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the son and daughter- in-law of the appellants. It is an unfortunate dispute between parents on one side and son and daughter-in-law on the other side. The appellants-original -2- plaintiffs have made various allegations against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that they are creating nuisance and in view thereof the appellants are not able to reside peacefully in the suit premises, which is partly in occupation of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also. Since this appeal is filed against an interlocutory order, it is not necessary for us to state the facts in detail. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, submit that the allegations made in the plaint are not correct. It is submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are residing in the suit premises along with their child aged about one and half years. 3. The aforesaid Notice of Motion was pressed into service by the appellants with a prayer that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from entering into the suit premises which is standing in the name of the appellants. Alternative prayer was to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to contribute 90 per cent of the electricity bill. The learned single Judge by the impugned order was of the opinion that no ad- interim order can be granted at that stage and the Notice of Motion was ordered to be listed for final hearing in due course. 4. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned at the instance of the appellants. -3- 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not contributing any amount towards electricity charges and in view of their conduct, it is difficult for the appellants to reside peacefully in the suit premises. These allegations have been controverted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stating that that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have full love and respect towards their parents. In our view, since the appeal is filed against an interlocutory order by which ad-interim relief was refused and since the Notice of Motion is pending before the learned single Judge, instead of deciding the entire controversy in detail at this stage, it would be just and proper to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards the electricity charges in this Court with liberty to the appellants to withdraw the same unconditionally till the Notice of Motion is decided by the learned single Judge. As regards past electricity charges, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of two weeks from today with liberty to the Appellants to withdraw the same unconditionally. It is clarified that this order is only tentative arrangement till the Notice of Motion is decided by the learned single Judge on its own merits. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dispute between parents on one side and son and daughter-in-law on the other side, we request the learned single Judge to dispose of the Notice of -4- Motion expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. It is clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the case and it is only by way of tentative arrangement the aforesaid order is passed. 7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. If any additional reply is required to be filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Notice of Motion, the same may be filed within a period of two weeks from today with advance copy to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R. V. MORE, J.