1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4010 of 2010 Smt.Sonabai Appaso Patil ... Petitioner versus Shri Ajitkumar Dharmagonda Patil & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Surel S. Shah for the petitioner. Mr.Sameer S. Tambekar for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 11th June 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 23rd April 2010 passed by the learned District Judge allowing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal filed by respondent no.1 and thereby dismissing the petitioner’s application for interim injunction. 2. The petitioner filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit no.198 of 2008 against the purchasers of the property from her brother in law. The brother­in­law and other members of the property were not joined as parties to the suit. The petitioner claimed that alienation made by the brother in law was not valid and she was entitled to a partition. The trial court granted the injunction. The appellate court reversed the 2 decision. It may be noted that the petitioner plaintiff claims the property to be the joint family property and claims a partition thereof. No family members, not even the brother in law who had sold the property was joined as party to the suit. Suit for partition filed without joining all the members as party to the suit prima facie is not maintainable and no prima facie case is therefore made out by the petitioner for grant of injunction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the property was already sold, only the purchaser was made as a party and alienation is challenged by the petitioner. It may be noted that previously petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit no.925 of 2007 challenging the alienation without claiming partition. If the principal cause for the second suit is the alienation, the same is also a subject matter of a previous suit which is pending. Second suit is therefore prima facie barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The alienation was made by sale deed dated 23rd November 1992 and deed of exchange has thereafter been executed on 13th January 1994. The suit has been filed on 19th June 2008 i.e more than 12 years after the sale deed and also after the deed of exchange and is prime facie barred by limitation. 4. In this view of the matter, the appellate Court committed no error in dismissing the application for injunction. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected summarily. Ad­interim relief previously granted stands vacated. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)