1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 07/2010 Mukundlal Ratanlal Agrawal vs. Kishore Mukundlal Agrawal and anothers WITH APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 23/2010 Kishore Mukundlal Agrawal vs. Mukundlal Ratanlal Agrawal and others =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-== Mr. C.A.Joshi, Counsel for Appellant in AO 07/10 Mr. A.S.Chandurkar, Counsel for R-1 in AO 07/10 Mr.Sarda, counsel for appellant in AO 23/10 absent Mr.C.A.Joshi, Counsel for R-1 & 2 in AO 23/10, C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 8th JUNE, 2010. Heard counsel for the appellant and also Mr. Chandurkar in AO 23/10. Mr. Sarda is reported to be out of station by the counsel holding, however, there is no leave note before this Court to accommodate. Perused the record. 2 2) The controversy revolves between the father Mukundlal Ratanlal Agrawal and his son Kishor Mukundlal Agrawal. Injunction was sought against the father by Kishor below Exh.5. The learned C.J.S.D. Akola by order dated 3rd October, 2009, passed the following order. “ 1. The application is allowed. 2. The defendants are hereby restrained by an order of temporary injunction from alienating the suit proper;ties or creating any 3rd party interest in the suit property till disposal of the suit. 3. Costs in cause.” 3) The counsel for the appellant Mukundlal submits, the appellant is 82 years old. He has keen desire to dispose of the property. His son i.e. plaintiff has already got his share by virtue of partition in 1977 and after a long slumber, he has now filed the suit seeking declaration and partition. 4) At this stage of the matter, the inter-se relations between the parties are not in controversy. The details of the property referred by the parties is also accepted. The fact remains, the assessment to the partition deed or the consent recorded by the plaintiff whereby he got certain amount from his father – appellant also needs to be appreciated, which could be done only at the time of evidence. The innocuous nature of the order demonstrate, it will not be causing any hardship to the appellant, the father. His age may be advancing, however, there is nothing to display that 3 he is not keeping well and has to make discharge of some obligation in the life. The conduct illustrate, the father is also well placed like his son, It may be that the plaintiff has suffered financial loss in the business. Though the plaintiff has canvassed, he was minor at the time of so called partition, however, belated action speaks volumes against him 5) Considering all these aspects, I do not see any error on the part of the learned Judge in granting injunction in terms demonstrated above. The A.O. lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. 6) A.O. No. 23/2010, relates to the dismissal of application below Exh. 20 moved by the plaintiff seeking interim mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore the possession of office to the plaintiff situated at first floor in the building on Plot NO. 2, Survey No. 19/2, Mouje Malkapur in the area known as Sindhi Camp, Opposite to Bhaji Bazar, having been rejected, the same is subject of challenge. 7) The factual matrix at this stage need not be dissected to. However, the interim mandatory injunction the plaintiff sought does not display that the plaintiff was any time in possession of the property or that he was bestowed with rights in the property. 8) It was canvassed that as the documents are lying in 4 the office and plaintiff sought direction against his father to remove from the said property, the learned Judge has found in the light of the statement of the witnesses Haribhau Dhote and Dr. Ram Dhote who are tenants of the premises that the plaintiff was not in possession of the premises. It is pertinent, the plaintiff has not specifically described the premises which was allegedly in his possession. He simply stated that he was in possession of the premises admeasuring 200 sq.ft. and running the office of Developer. Such pleadings naturally could not weigh on merits before the learned Judge. He was justified in not entertaining the request for grant of temporary mandatory injunction. The order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference. A.O., lacks merit. Dismissed. No costs. 9) In the peculiar facts of the case, the learned Judge dealing with the matter shall ensure to dispose of the Special Civil Suit NO. 20/2009 within a period of one year. Communicate. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit