915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 61 OF 2026 Chanchal Ajaysingh Chauhan VERSUS Dharampalsingh Rupsingh Chauhan And Others ... Mr. Rathi Swapnil S., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Madhav K. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11338 OF 2026 IN AO/61/2026 …. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 30.09.2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard. 2. Issue notice to the Respondents. Learned Advocate Mr. M. K. Jadhav waives notice for the Respondents. 3. By consent of the parties, this Appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission. 4. By this Appeal, the Appellant-plaintiff has challenged an order passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hingoli, below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No.41 of 2025, dated 05.09.2026, whereby the application filed by the Appellant- plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from creating any third-party interest in the suit 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:46079 (( 2 )) 915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026 properties came to be rejected. 5. Mr. S. S. Rathi, learned Advocate for the Appellant-plaintiff submitted that the land admeasuring 1 H 47 R in Block No. 108, land admeasuring 1 H 25 R in Block No. 109, House No. 3246, and Plot Nos. 5, 12, 7, 22 and 27 in Survey No. 21, City Survey No. 2749, situated at village Karwadi, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli, are the subject matter of the suit. 6. The Appellant is the daughter of Respondent No. 1 and sister of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Advocate for the Appellant submitted that the suit land Block Nos. 108 and 109 were in the name of the Appellant's mother, but Respondents prepared a false and bogus Will dated 26.03.2015, which was allegedly executed by the mother of the Appellant, and on that basis, they are now trying to transfer the plots situated in the suit properties. It is submitted that partition of the suit properties is not effected, hence, the Appellant filed the suit for partition which came to be dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court had allowed the application at Exhibit-5 and restrained the Defendants, i.e., the Respondents, from creating any third-party interest in the suit properties. He further submitted that, though the suit was dismissed, this Appeal is a continuation of the 2 of 5 (( 3 )) 915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026 suit, therefore, if the nature of the subject matter is changed, the Appellant will suffer irreparable loss which may result in creating multiplicity of judicial proceedings. He submitted that, to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to protect the subject matter during the pendency of the Appeal, the application at Exhibit-5 was preferred for temporary injunction, which was rejected by the learned Appellate Court. He submitted that if a third-party interest is created in the suit property, the Appellant will certainly suffer. He, therefore, prayed to allow the application at Exhibit-5. 7. Mr. M. K. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Respondents submitted that the Will executed by the mother of the Appellant was also in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff, under which she received a ¼th share. He submitted that, in the suit for partition, evidence was led by the parties and, after considering the evidence on merits, the suit came to be dismissed. The Gift Deed executed in favour of the Respondents has been challenged by the Plaintiff. He submitted that merely because a temporary injunction had been granted in the suit, the Appellate Court is not bound to pass a similar order of temporary injunction in the appeal, particularly when the suit itself has been dismissed on merits. He therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal, as 3 of 5 (( 4 )) 915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026 there is no substance in the grounds of objection raised therein. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, the judgment of the learned Trial Court, and the grounds of objections raised in the appeal, it appears that non-agricultural (N.A.) plots have been developed in the suit properties. The Respondents are trying to sell the said plots. However, the Appellant-Plaintiff has a ¼th share in the said properties. Therefore, to the extent of the Appellant-Plaintiff's ¼th share in the suit properties, if temporary injunction is granted, the interest of the Appellant-Plaintiff can be safeguarded. To that extent, there is a prima facie case in favour of the Appellant-Plaintiff and the balance of convenience also lies in her favour. The Appellant-Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if the temporary injunction is not granted to the aforesaid extent. 9. In view of the above reasons, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and the impugned order deserves to be partly set aside. Hence, the following order: ::ORDER:: a. The Appeal From Order is partly allowed. b. The order passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hingoli, below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2025, 4 of 5 (( 5 )) 915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026 dated 05.09.2026, is partly set aside. c. The Respondents are temporarily restrained from creating any third-party interest to the extent of the ¼th share of the Appellant-Plaintiff in the plots situated in the suit properties. The Appellant-Plaintiff shall communicate this order to the Respondents by RPAD and shall also serve a copy of this order to the Sub-Registrar, Hingoli. d. Pending Civil Application is disposed of. e. The observations made herein are prima facie in nature and are confined to the extent of the present appeal only. The learned Appellate Court shall not be influenced by the observations or findings recorded herein while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2025 on its own merits. f. The learned Appellate Court is directed to decide Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2025 as early as possible and, in any case, within one year. However, it is clarified that if any matter is earlier expedited either by the Honourable Supreme Court or this Court, priority shall be given to that matter or matters, and thereafter the present appeal shall be decided. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] HRJadhav 5 of 5