IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1563 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 978 OF 2009 Mangla M. Kasbe ..... ..... ...Plaintiff V/s Sangita P. Magade & Ors. ..... ..... ...Defendants. Mr.J.S.Kini i/by Suresh Dubey, Adv. for the plaintiff. Ms.Vaijayanti Kalekar, Adv. for the defendants. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 24th April, 2009. PC: Heard. By consent notice of motion is taken up for hearing. The subject matter of the present suit is residential flat wherein admittedly the plaintiff is not residing as of now. This very flat is subject matter of First Appeal bearing No.101/06 pending in this Court. The said appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court in a suit filed by defendant No.2 in the present suit and her late husband by name Vishnu Magade. The City Civil Court has recorded a finding that the suit flat is joint family property. In first appeal preferred by present defendant No.1 and apprehending creation third party interest by respondent in the said appeal notice of motion was taken out and the same came to be disposed of by an order passed by this Court dated 6.2.07. Perusal of 1 the order reveals that the respondent in the said appeal made a statement that they will not create any third party interest and accepting the said statement no interim relief came to be granted. As the City Civil Court has already recorded a finding that the suit flat is a joint family property the prayer (a) of the notice of motion seeking restraint order against present defendant No.1 from creating third party interest in the suit property deserves to be granted. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 on instructions form her client who is present in the Court makes a statement that the 1st defendant will not create any third party interest in the suit property till disposal of the suit. The said statement is accepted and hence there is no need to pass any order touching prayer (a). So far prayer (b) is concerned the plaintiff is seeking injunction against defendant No.1 from preventing the entry of the plaintiff or that of any member of joint family from entering, occupying or resiting in the suit flat. Prayer is very widely worded which includes a relief in the nature of securing the plaintiff's entry with a view to reside in the suit flat. Same would obviously disturb the status quo that prevails in regard to suit property. Plaintiff has already brought on record legal heirs of deceased Vishnu in first appeal which is pending this Court. The first appellate court who is seized of the matter would be in proper position to deal with the said prayer. Be that as it may, plaintiff has failed to establish that at any point of time defendant No.1 has in fact prevented the entry of the plaintiff for the purpose of meeting her mother who is staying the suit 2 flat and thus no case for grant of injunction against defendant No.1 is made out. It is also seen that defendant No.1 is working as doctor and has to ordinarily stay at the quarters at E.S.I.C. Hospital, Worli. Having regard to the nature of work performed by defendant No.1 it is most unlikely that she is preventing the entry of plaintiff which is stated to be for the purpose of meeting her ailing mother. In the result prayer (b) stands rejected. Notice of motion stands disposed of accordingly. 24.4.2009. 3