1 27.AO.630-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.630 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.862 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.630 OF 2011 Venilal Chhaganlal Sevak. ..Appellant. Vs. Tahelsingh Gurdevsingh and others. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.Jayesh Bhatt, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Rajan Chaturvedi, for Respondent No.1. Mr.E.K. Sasidharan, for Respondent No.5. .......... CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : 20TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is consented by the parties that the present Appeal from Order is to be disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2 27.AO.630-11 2. Heard the rival submissions. It is contention of the present appellant / orig. plaintiff that he is one of the partners of one partnership firm by name Build Well Constructions which is respondent No.4. Present respondent No.1 is also one of the partners. The suit property which is subject matter of the Suit No.635 of 2011 and Notice of Motion No.884 of 2011 was belonging to the said firm. However, allegedly present respondent No.1, one of the partners, had created a third party interest with respect to the said suit property in favour of the present respondent No.5, of course, without consent of the present appellant / plaintiff. 3. Present Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order passed by the City Civil Court dated 7th April, 2011 by which the prayer for injunction against the present respondents / defendants was not granted. Notice of Motion No.884 of 2011 is still pending for reply of the defendants and for final hearing. 4. It appears that what was placed before the trial Court asking for ad-interim relief was the copy of the 7/12 extract concerning the suit property in which the names of the persons 3 27.AO.630-11 were mentioned in other rights by way of mutation entry Nos.7157 & 7158. Admittedly, apart from such copies of 7/12 extract, nothing more was placed before the Court in order to establish the title of the firm over the suit property and for which the injunctive relief was asked. 5. Considering the rival submissions and mainly considering the submissions on behalf of respondent No.5 that he has become owner of the suit property by a registered conveyance dated 6th April, 2010, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to grant any ad-interim relief injuncting specifically the respondent Nos.1 & 5 from acting in any manner with respect to the suit property. This is more so when the matter is at the stage of appeal against order and when the document produced before the trial Court were as mentioned above recording the entries in the 7/12 extract and nothing more. Needless to mention that the pending Notice of Motion is required to be finally heard by the trial Court after giving opportunities to the rival parties to file their affidavit in reply / rejoinder and decide the matter according to law, preferably within a time bound programme so as to avoid further 4 27.AO.630-11 multiplicity of the proceedings. In the result, present Appeal from Order is disposed of with following order : :: O R D E R :: [i] The matter is sent back to the trial Court for disposal of the pending Notice of Motion No.884 of 2011 after giving opportunities to the parties concerned to file detailed affidavit in reply / rejoinder, if any, and to decide the said Notice of Motion on its own merits and within a period of four weeks from receipt of an authenticated copy of this order. [ii] Concerned parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registry of this Court. [iii] Appeal from Order No.630 of 2011 stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Application also stands disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) PPD