1 A.O. No.69/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.69 OF 2007 WITH CIVL APPLICATION NO.4804 OF 2007 Abdul Rahimbhai Ibrahimbhai Nathani and another ... APPELLANTS VERSUS Hajrabai Yunus Nathani and others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri J.R. Shah, Advocate for appellants Shri R.R. Mantri, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7 ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1st December, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. Shah. He informs for decision in the Appeal from Order No.69/2007. Service of respondent No.3 is not imperative as he is not claiming any relief in the Appeal from Order against respondent No.3 who is his brother. 2. Heard. Refusal to grant of injunction below Exh.5 in a suit for declaration and separate possession by alleged co-owner is questioned by the plaintiff. The respondents No.6 and 7 are the purchasers of the property by virtue of sale deed dated 15.1.2007 2 A.O. No.69/2010 from respondent No.5. The learned Judge, while rejecting the application, has evaluated the documents flowing in favour of respondent No.5 to execute such conveyance in favour of respondents No.6 and 7 and found, there was no balance of convenience nor any irreparable loss in faovur of the plaintiff/ petitioner. 3. There operates an order of status quo recorded by this Court dated 26.6.2007. A grievance is made by Mr. Mantri that any time in past such orders are not served upon his clients. Both the sides are unable to illustrate whether there is a service or no service. Be that as it may, the fact remains, the respondents No.6 and 7 being purchasers, have developed the property, invested huge amount and have to materialse their investment by selling small plots. 4. During the course of submissions, Mr. Mantri, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7 submits, if the matter is not dragged by the plaintiff/ petitioner before the learned Judge, the respondents No.6 and 7 will have no objection to incorporate pendency of ongoing litigation in any conveyance the respondents would be entering into with subsequent purchaser. This is a clear offer. In the result, following order : 3 A.O. No.69/2010 5. Appeal from Order is dismissed. No costs. However, the respondents No.6 and 7 as purchasers of the property, if during pendency of the suit, desire to convey or create a charge on the property, would intimate the same to the prospective purchaser by recording it in the conveyance. The learned Judge seized with the matter shall ensure to dispose of the case up to 31st August 2011. The petitioner/ plaintiff shall not seek unreasonable accommodation from the learned Judge in prosecuting the matter. 6. If the learned Judge finds that unreasonable accommodation is sought and matter is dragged at the behest of the plaintiff/ petitioner, the same should be recorded and the result would be, he would relieve the respondents No.6 and 7 from above restrain. 6. In view of disposal of the Appeal from Order, Civil Application No.4804 of 2007 stands disposed of. No costs. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/ao69.07