1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 550 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 550 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 550 OF 2007 Bhimrao Rajaram Doke ... Appellant (Org. Plaintiff) Versus Prabhakar Vishwanath Doke & ors. Respondents (Org. Defendants) Mr.T.D.Deshmukh, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Prakash K.Deshmukh, Advocate, for the respondents Nos. 1, 4 & 5. Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for the intervenor. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 14th January,2008. DATE: 14th January,2008. DATE: 14th January,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Civil Application filed by Navnath Rajaram Doke seeking intervention in A.O. No.550 of 2007 be 2 registered. The Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.242 of 1987 wherein he claimed that he is in possession of the suit property bearing Gat no.151 admeasuring 7 acres and 39 gunthas under some arrangement entered into between the parties in 1983. At the same time, several other suits were filed by other persons. Suit No.219 of 1987 was filed by Baliram Rajaram Doke, who is respondent No.4 in the present Appeal for partition of the joint family property. That suit is decreed. Regular Civil Suit No.242 of 1987 filed by the present appellant for seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the Suit Gat No.151 came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.7.2004. Against that judgment, the appellant preferred appeal with an application for condonation of delay. Pending the application for condonation of delay, the interim relief of temporary injunction was granted. However, after condonation of delay, when the application for temporary injunction in Appeal came up for hearing, the learned appellate Court rejected the application observing that the suit property, Gat No.151 admeasuring 7 acres and 39 gunthas is admittedly a joint 3 family property and respondent No.1 had no right to enter into an agreement with the present appellant and giving him exclusive possession over the suit land. The appellate Court noted that the plaintiff also admits that the suit property is the joint family property and admittedly a decree for partition has been passed. Of course, the appeal against that decree is pending. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that in Suit No.219 of 1987 filed by Baliram R.Doke for the purpose of partition, the present plaintiff-appellant has clearly admitted that the suit property is the joint family property. Taking into consideration these circumstances, the appellate Court found that the appellant cannot claim temporary injunction so as to exclude the other joint owners from the joint possession of the suit property. With these observations, the application for temporary injunction came to be rejected. The present Appeal is preferred against that order. 4. Taking into consideration the reasons given by the appellate Court while rejecting the application for temporary injunction and the fact that the suit filed by the present appellant for perpetual injunction has 4 already been dismissed, I do not find any justification to interfere in the discretion exercised by the appellate Court in refusing the temporary injunction to the appellant. 5. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant makes a request to continue the status quo order for some more period. This request is opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents on the ground that in view of the status quo order, the parties are not in a position to irrigate the standing crop of sugarcane and taking advantage of the status quo order passed earlier, the present appellant has approached the police and prevented the other joint owners from irrigating the land. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a standing crop of sugarcane which needs irrigation, the request made by the present appellant stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)