1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6457 of 2009 Vijaykumar @ Vijay Ramdas Dafal ....Petitioner v/s. Gouri Vijaykumar Dafal & anr. ....Respondents Mr. S.C. Halli for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Patil for the respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- January 06, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr. Ajay Patil waives service for the Respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2 4. Counsel for the Respondent has raised preliminary objection about maintainability of this Petition. According to him, the order impugned in this Petition dated 16th May, 2009 is an appealable order. Counsel for the Respondent, however, is unable to point out any provision in the Act of 2005 which permits filing of appeal against order passed in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Act which obviously is an interim arrangement to be observed by the parties during the pendency of main proceedings pending before that Court. In the circumstances, the preliminary objection is rejected. 2. In so far as merits is concerned, this Petition takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 1, Pune dated 16th May, 2009. This order has been passed on application filed by the Respondents for injunction in the pending proceedings PE No. 456/2008. The Application was numbered as Exhibit No. 15. In the main proceedings, the relief claimed is under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code. During the pendency of the said proceedings, it was prayed by the Respondents that the Petitioner herein be restrained by an order of injunction from carrying out construction work of the first floor on the disputed property Survey No. 669 at Wagholi till the disposal of the main Petition. The Court below has acceded to that request of the Respondents on the finding that a loan of Rs. five lacs was raised for the 3 construction of the said house in the name of the Respondent herein and the mortgaged document was also executed by the Respondent herein jointly with her mother in law in favour of Baramati Sahakari Bank. It is on that premise the order of injunction has been passed against the Petitioner herein. The Court below, however, has not addressed itself to the question as to what was the nature of right of the Petitioner herein in Survey No. 669 at Wagholi. It has also not considered the contention of the Petitioner herein that he was in no way connected with the construction work of the first floor on the disputed property. Further, the said property is exclusively owned and possessed by his mother and the construction work was undertaken by his mother. If it is so, the question of issuing order of injunction against the Petitioner herein does not arise and cannot be the basis to interdict the construction work of the first floor on the disputed property CTS 669 at Wagholi. If the Respondents have any grievance, that would be against the mother in law of the Respondent No. 1 who is the owner of the property in question and is in the process of constructing the first floor of the said building. Obviously, the Respondents could not have proceeded against the mother in law in the present proceedings. If any relief has to be granted against mother in law, the Respondents will have to take recourse to some other proceedings before appropriate Court. In my opinion, therefore, the order of injunction as granted by the Lower Court which is impugned in this Petition 4 cannot be sustained. 3. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with liberty to the Respondents to take recourse to such other remedy against the mother in law, if so advised. Those proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Petition disposed of accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)