IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 238 OF 2009 SMT. DEVU GANESH GOANKAR AND 5 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus VISHNU CHANDRU GAONKAR AND 11 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 16th April, 2009 P.C. The lis is between the co-owners. The essential concept of the lis is preventing one co-owner from executing a sale deed in respect of the property claimed by the plaintiffs as such co-owners. The defendants deny that they are co-owners. That aspect is to be dealt with in the suit. The plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit No.16/2009 and exparte ad-interim injunction was obtained by the plaintiffs. Thereafter upon hearing the parties, order came to be confirmed. An injunction order therefore must remain pending in the suit. The main consequence of the injunction order is that the sale deed in the suit land is not to be executed. The defendants have executed the sale deed. It is their contention that the order of injunction was not brought to their notice before the sale deed was executed. 2. The plaintiffs apprehended that the Sub Registrar would allow the sale deed to be registered though the order of injunction was passed. It appears that the plaintiffs made an application under incorrect provisions. The order was not granted. The plaintiffs made another application under the correct provisions. Exparte order came to be granted. 3. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that after the first order came to be passed on 30.07.2008, the document came to be impounded by the Registrar and in essence, the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs were effectuated. The documents were brought back to the Sub Registrar and hence the apprehension that the documents would be registered was again brought out to the plaintiffs. In the second application, the order came to be passed on 23.01.2009 calling upon the Sub Registrar not to register the sale deed/lease deed. 4. The defendants filed review application. The defendants contend that it was in fact an affidavit-in-reply and the exparte order was called upon to be re-considered. Upon the premise that the plaintiffs suppressed the facts, the application has come to be rejected. 5. Once an order of injunction is passed, it is meant tobe obeyed. If an act which has been injuncted, was in fact done an order or direction to effectuate the order of injunction must be passed as a matter of course. These are further orders that the Court in any case is not only empowered but enjoined to do. 6. In essence what the plaintiffs require is the order of injunction restraining the sale of the property co-owned by the plaintiffs and the defendants to be effectuated. The sale deed/lease deed having being executed, the only effective remedy for the plaintiffs is to see that the sale deed/lease deed is not registered so that further acts pending the suit are restrained. 7. In the interest of justice therefore, the order of injunction passed on merits after hearing the parties,which is pending the suit shall be effectuated by direction upon the Registrar not to register the sale deed/lease deed executed by the defendants in favour of any third party. 8. The Sub Registrar shall not register any sale deed/lease deed or any other document in respect of the suit property pending the suit. Writ petition stands disposed of. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. lh/.