{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.61 OF 2011 Jugulal s/o Shamlal Ahir and another Appellants Versus Md. Pashamiyan s/o Md. Habib Kureshi & others Respondents Mr.H.I.Pathan, advocate for the appellants. Mr.S.D.Hiwrekar, advocate for Respondents No.1 to 5. Mr.S.S.Kazi, advocate for Respondents No.6 & 7. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 19 th December, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard. 2 The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved by refusal to grant injunction by order dated 23.12.2010, recorded by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, have preferred this Appeal from Order. 3 Learned Counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) has invited my attention to the agreement of sale styled as `Kararnama’ executed by Respondents No.1 to 5 reciting therein having received Rs.1,85,000/- additionally out of sale consideration of Rs. {2} 6,00,000/- and having parted with possession of three rooms which were in occupation of Mohd. Gaus (Respondent No.2) including the open space near the rooms or at the southern side. This is even more clearly recited in the subsequent document executed between the appellants and Respondents No.1 to 5 wherein an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by the Respondents on 21.08.2007, signed by Respondents No.1 to 5. The situation added in the matter is, when there was controversy between the legal representatives and Respondents inter se concerning shares after death of Abdul Habib Mohammad Husain Qureshi and the property being recorded in the name of Smt.Azizabee, an application was moved to the Taluka Inspector of Land Records, City Survey Office at Nanded, dated 09.05.2008. This application is signed by Respondents No.1 to 5 and primarily not disputed. In this application, in unequivocal terms, in paragraph 2, it is recited that at the time of agreement of sale in favour of plaintiffs- appellants, on 20.03.2006, possession of particular portion of the property was handed over to them and further part was also handed over to purchaser-appellants. The solemn affirmation uninfluenced by any assertion by the plaintiffs before the City Survey Officer carries importance. 4 The learned Judge has observed that there is no case of interference and or of obstruction from the Respondents and consequently refused injunction. When the plaintiffs/appellants {3} threaten dispossession and disturbance to their enjoyment, it was imperative for the learned Judge, in the light of the documents tendered on record, to have considered the case in tune with provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs, irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiffs if injunction is not clamped. 5 Hence, the order rejecting Exhibit-5 is reversed. Respondents herein are restrained from interfering in the possession and enjoyment of the appellants - as plaintiffs in respect of three rooms and open space, as recited in the agreements dated 20.03.2006 and 30.01.2007. 6 Appeal from Order is allowed to the extent as above, with costs. Civil Application is also disposed of. This order is stayed for a period of eight weeks. However, earlier order not to create third party interest to continue. K.U.CHANDIWAL JUDGE adb/ao6111