1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13263 OF 2010 IN FAST NO.23301 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 23.11.2010. 1. This is an application seeking injunction restraining the present non-applicant from interfering into peaceful possession of the present applicants and so also seeking injunction against non-applicant from alienating or creating third party interest in respect of the suit property. 2. The suit filed by the present applicants for declaration that the sale deed in question is illegal, null and void and suit for partition came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The applicants aggrieved by the same had filed First Appeal which is admitted by this Court. 3. Mr.Nagargoje, learned counsel for the applicants states that the present applicants are in possession of the property and after dismissal of the suit the present Respondents are trying to interfere in their possession and as such are entitled to protect their possession by relief of injunction. 4. Per contra, Mr.C.R.Deshpande, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.4 submits that even during the pendency of the suit no prayer was made restraining the present non-applicants from allegedly interfering in the possession of the applicants nor any perpetual injunction was sought in that regard. In fact, the suit itself was for partition and separate possession. As such the relief of injunction would be running counter to the claim of partition and separate possession itself. He also submits that no injunction restraining the present non-applicants from alienating the property can be granted as there is no prima facie case in favour of the applicants and if such an injunction is granted, the same would amount to fetters on the right of ownership. 5. It is a fact that no relief of perpetual injunction is claimed by the applicants nor during pendency of the appeal any temporary injunction was claimed. In such circumstances, in the present appeal, for the first time, the said relief can not be granted. In light of the same, I am not inclined to consider prayer clause (A). As far as the relief regarding not to alienate or create third party interest is concerned, the First Appeal is admitted and multiplicity of litigation is to be avoided. For the said purpose, the property will have to be safeguarded. In light of the same, the Civil Application is allowed to the extent of prayer clause (B). The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.23.11.2010. asp/office/Ca13263.10