VITHOBA MARUTI WAKADKAR Vs. NAMDEO RAGHU WAKADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned in this appeal is rejection of the application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellant before the Additional District Judge, Pune, in Misc. Civil Application No.561 of 1998. The appellant had filed Civil Suit viz. Regular Civil Suit No. 1016 of 1990 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, making out a case that the property in that suit was mortgaged by him with the respondent and on redemption and payment of the amount due under the mortgage, he may be delivered possession of the property. The Civil Judge after recording the evidence decided that suit and dismissed the same against which the appellant sought to file an appeal in the District Court, Pune, but there was delay in preferring such an appeal and, therefore, by Misc.Application (Civil) No.561 of 1998 the said delay was sought to be condoned. Pending that Misc.(Civil) Application, the appellant applied for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from transferring, alienating or otherwise creating any third party interest in the suit property and that application came to be rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Pune.

(2.) I have heard Mr.Dani for the appellant and Ms.Bhagalia for the respondent.

(3.) It appears that the appellant made out of case of oral mortgage in the suit filed before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune, and after consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that no such oral mortgage could be there nor was it proved and that is how the suit for redemption came to be dismissed. The appellate court while dismissing the application for temporary injunction also found that there could be no oral mortgage and under the circumstances no such injunction as prayed for could be granted.