KETAN ANANT DESHMUKH Vs. SUMAN VISHNU DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code challenges the order dtd. 9/6/2016 by which learned District Judge-IV, Raigad, Alibaug declined to direct the respondents, to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property till the decision in the Regular Civil Appeal No.88/2015.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are like thiss . Appellants-Plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 573/2012 for declaration and allotment of their share in the lands allotted by the City Industrial Corporation, to the defendants no.1 and 2, being Project Affected Persons. Mr. Sakharam S. Deshmukh, was maternal grandfather of the Plaintiffs no.4 to 7 and of defendant no.2s whereas, grandfather of Plaintiffs no.1 to 3. The defendants no.1 and 2 and the plaintiffs are in relation to each other. The defendant no.3 is Co-operative Housing Societys whereas, defendants no.4 and 5 are the Offcers of the City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd ("CIDCO" for short). Sakharam Deshmukh, common ancestor, was owner of the agricultural lands at Village-Gavhan, District-Raigad. After Sakharam's death, lands were devolved jointly on his family members. The part of these lands were acquired by the State of Maharashtra and vested in CIDCO for project of Navi Mumbai. The CIDCO, pursuant to 12.5% Scheme, under the New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975, allotted land admeasuring 8,500 sq.mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as "suit aggregate entitlement") to the defendants no.1 and 2, excluding the plaintiffs. Plaintiff's state that, share of plaintiff's and defendants no.1, no.2 in the, aggregate entitlement, is 2,833 sq.mtrs. each. That, in/ or about August, 2011 when they enquired with CIDCO about status of suit aggregate entitlement, they were shocked to learn that, defendant no.1 had approached CIDCO and caused CIDCO to allot her certain portion of aggregate entitlement in exclusion of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff's state that the defendant no.1 in collusion with offcers of CIDCO, transferred land admeasuring 5,700 sq.mtrs to the defendant no.3-Housing Society. Whereafter, the plaintiffs caused their Advocate to address a letter in August, 2011 to defendants no.1 to 5. The defendants no.1 and 2, through their Advocate replied, stating that, there was, oral partition effected between the descendants of original owner in 1955, pursuant to which defendants no.1 and 2, alone were entitled to land admeasuring 8,500 sq.mtrs. allotted/to be allotted by the CIDCO, in terms of 12.5% Scheme, being Project Affected Person. Thus, appellants-plaintiffs instituted Suit on 3/3/2012, claiming one-third share in aggregate entitlement i.e. 2,833 sq.mtrs. The defendant no.3, caused its appearance and sought rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code. The application of defendant no.3 was allowed. As a result, plaint was rejected on 14/2/2016. That order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 5598/2014s but was withdrawn on 3/3/2015. Afterwhich, Regular Civil Appeal No. 88/2015 was fled. Pending Appeal, appellants moved an application, Exhibit-21, seeking directions to the defendants to maintain the status-quo in respect of the lands allotted by the CIDCO, to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings. That application was rejected on 9/8/2016. Feeling aggrieved by that order, this Appeal from Order is preferred. On 4/1/2008, notices were directed to be issued to the respondents and till the returnable date, CIDCO was directed, not to pass, further order concerning 8,500 sq.mtrs land, allotted/to be allotted under its 12.5% Scheme.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.