BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE

BHANDARA
MISC. CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________OF 2014
APPELLANTS: 1)Smt. Sushila Wd/o Rooplal Fulsunge
Aged about 78 years.
Occupation:Housewife/Retired
R/o-Hanuman Ward Near Post ofce
Main Road Bhandara.
2)Bharti W/o Ashok Siriya
Aged about 58 years
Occupation: Housewife
R/o-26A Palm Road Civil Lines
Nagpur
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS 1) Hemlata W/o Chhotelal Gopal
Aged about:60 years
Occ: Housewife
R/o654 Sundar Nagar, Raipur
Tah Dist Raipur (C.G)
2) Smt.Meena Wd/o Dilip Siriya
Aged about 49 years.
R/o- Siriya Complex, Golecha Marg,
Sadar Nagpur. Tah Dist.Nagpur
3) Bhandara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Through its Manager
Mid Town Branch, Near Bus stand
Bhandara.
4) Syndicate Bank, Branch Bhandara
Through its Branch Manager
Near post ofce chowk Bhandara
5) Bhandara District Central Co-op Bank
Through its Branch Manager
Near post ofce chowk Bhandara
6) Canara Bank Bhandara
Through Branch manager
Near Bus Stand Bhandara.
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 104 READ WITH THE ORDER 43
RULE 1 (r) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2014 passed below
Ex. 5 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara in
Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 2014, granting ad-interim ex-parte
injunction against the respondent Nos. 1 & 6, which infact works
against the present appellants, therefore the present appellants are
assailing the same, on the following facts and grounds as under:
FACTS
1. That, the appellant No.1 is an old lady women of 76 year old
who is having several health problems. It is submitted that the
appellant No.2 is the second daughter of appellant No.1. The
respondent No.1 is the eldest daughter. The respondent No.2 is
the youngest daughter of appellant No.1. The husband of the
appellant No.1 Shri Rooplal Munnalal Fulsunge expired on 29th
December 2013 leaving behind the appellants and respondent No.1
& 2 as legal heirs. In short the present appellant No.1 is the wife
and present appellant No.2 and respondent No. 1& 2 are the
daughters of late Shri Rooplal Munnalal Fulsunge.
2. That, the respondent No.1 & 2 have played mischief with the
appellants, apparently as a result of which the impugned order
under challenge. That the respondent No.1 & 2 in greed of money
and property had started harassing appellant No.1,after the death
of their father Shri Rooplal Fulsunge. At the outset, before dealing
with the allegations against the present appellants, it is necessary
to bring to the kind notice of the Honourable Court, that the brief
facts and circumstances, giving rise to the controversy in the
present appeal. Similarly it is also necessary to bring each and
every fact, in as much as, the plaintif is apparently trying to
mislead this Honble Court and some how had sought the ad-
interim ex-party injunction.
3. It is submitted that late Shri Rooplal was allotted two lands
admeasuring about 660.7 Sq.ft and 70.80 Sq.ft at plot Sheet plot
No.14 and another at Sheet No.44 plot No.14 respectively at
Hanuman Ward Bhandara. The said lands mentioned above were
allotted to him under the settlement in one execution proceedings
which were before the Honble Civil Judge Senior Divison Bhandara
bearing RD No.13/2012. That the said settlement was arrived at
Maha Lok Adalat held on 12/9/2012 in which fnal award was
passed and land allotted to late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge was
confrmed. The award of Lok Adalat was clearly having directions
that once the land is allotted, parties are at liberty to mark/erect
the walls on their respective lands for avoiding further disputes
which may arose.
4. That as the properties were divided among the elders of the
family, the parties approached with their respective shares at the
ofce of City survey for getting their name registered over the
properties allotted to them. It is submitted that one Shri Vijay
Fulsunge for the said purpose had also executed a Power of
Attorney and had handed over all the powers in respect of the
properties allotted to him and to his sisters including the property
which is adjacent to the property of appellants late husband, to
one antisocial person named as Rajendra Fulsunge. The appellants
submit that in pursuance to the said settlement, sometime in the
month of December 2013, Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge had also
started erecting the walls at the border to make the boundaries
over the portion of plot which was allotted to him. It is submitted
that when the entire boundaries were erected the said Rajendra
Fulsunge along with 8-10 antisocial elements approached the plot
of Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge and broke all the tin shed partition
fxed by Late Shri Rooplal over the boundaries. It is submitted that
the acts of Rajendra & his antisocial elements while entering the
premises of late Shri Rooplal without any lawful authorization and
forcibly breaking the tin boundaries is absolutely illegal.
5. It is a settled law that only dispossession in due course of
law can be accorded legitimacy by the Courts and forcible
dispossession by infuential persons and muscle men cannot be
condoned and therefore it is clear here the in the present case also
the appellants late husband was disposed with the help of the
antisocial elements forcibly. On very same day i.e on 21/12/2013
Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge had lodged a police complaint against
the said Rajendra and his antisocial elements. Even after the
lodging of Police Complaint, no action was taken against Rajendra
and his antisocial elements. That, it was learnt to Late Shri Rooplal
that due to political infuence of Rajendra and his antisocial
elements, no action is taken against them. That the said acts of
Rajendra and his antisocial elements had adversely afected the
health of Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge. Being an aged person, Shri
Rooplal couldnt sustain the impact of illegal acts and was required
to be hospitalized. That on 24/12/2013, health of Late Shri
Rooplal started deteriorating more and as result of which he was
required to shift from Bhandara to Care Hospital at Nagpur and
he expired on 29/12/2013.
6. That, the main controversy over the property & money of
Late Shri Rooplal started after his death. That, on the very next
day of the funeral, the respondent No.1 & 2 under the infuence of
said Rajendra Fulsunge started creating hue and cry regarding
the money and property of their Late father before the appellant
No.1. That, the appellant No.1 being very humble, politely informed
the respondent No.1 & 2 that she and her husband had incurred
much expenses at the time of their marriage and . That the
respondent Nos 1 and 2 being married daughters are not entitled
for the share in the property of their father. It is most pertinent to
mention at this juncture that respondent No.1 & 2 had not even
visited the appellant since from last 18-20 years. That apart from
that, none of them have taken any care and treatment of appellant
No.1 as well as of Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge, despite the fact that
time and again appellant and Rooplal had undergone various
operations at various hospitals. It was only the Appellant No: 2
who resides at Nagpur, used to come and take all care and
treatment of appellant No.1 and also of her husband by incurring
huge amount of the expenses on the operations and on medical
bills.
7. It is pertinent to mention that at this juncture, the fnancial
condition of Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge was not well since last 3-4
years . It was appellant No.2 only who were bearing most of the
expenses of her parent. Sometimes the situation was such that
appellant No.2 was even required to provide grocery and other daily
needs to her parents. That respondents No.1 & 2 were least
concerned with the fnancial problems. They are only coming with
the desire of getting amount which their father is having in his
bank accounts. This shows their greed. It is at Rajendra
Fulsunge s instance all these malicious acts are being done by
the respondent No.1 & 2. All this history, which although has no-
connection is directly brought with the suit in respect of which the
present appeal is being fled, is being brought to the kind notice of
this Honble Court to demonstrate that there are series of illegal
acts of present respondent No.1 & 2 by playing hands in gloves
with said Rajendra Fulsunge and to demonstrate this Honble
Court.
8. It is apparent from the circumstances, in which the learned
Lower Court was convinced to pass an order of ad-interim Ex-parte
temporary injunction. That from the conduct of the respondent
No.1 & 2 it is clear that they do not want to abide by the moral
responsibility which they owe toward their parent. The respondent
No.1 & 2 have further misled the Court as well as apparently
played fraud while seeking ad-interim ex-parte temporary
injunction relief which would become clear to the Honble Court
from the following submissions :
9. The suit was fled by respondent No.1 & 2 claiming that the
decree of mandatory & permanent injunction against the
appellants is null and void. It is settled law that parties who do not
approach the Honourable Court with clean hands deserves no
relief. Thus while suppressing the vital facts from this Honourable
court, the respondentNo.1 & 2 are claiming relief against the
present appellants.
10. That the entire approach of the respondent No.1 & 2 is
misleading & ambiguous. They have mentioned in the Para No. 8
of their suit that cause of arose on 16/1/2014 when legal notice
was issued against the appellants and other banks, but the
documents fled by the respondent No.1 & 2 itself shows that the
legal Notice is sent on 17/1/2014.
11. That the service of summons of the suit fled by the
respondent No.1 & 2 was not properly done on the appellants as a
result of which the present impugned ad-interim ex-parte
temporary injunction order. It is noteworthy to bring to the kind
knowledge of this Honourable court that the appellant No.1 is old
aged women who had came to Nagpur for two reasons check-up at
hospital i.e at Care Hospital and to get consulted regarding legal
notice dated 17/1/2014 with the lawyer at Nagpur on 21/1/2014.
That the appellant No.1 stayed at Nagpur for 3 days at the house
of appellant No.2 . In the mean time when reply to the legal notice
of was ready, the appellants were served with the Copy of Suit, T.I.
Application and copy of impugned order dated 20/1/2014.
12. The learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of notice to
the appellants/defendants by its order passed below Exh.5. The
entire relief claimed was against these appellants and they are the
only persons who are bound to be afected by any order of
injunction which was passed. The respondent No.1 & 2 have
misled the Learned Trial Court and played fraud vide application at
Exh.5 for grant of ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer thereof.
13. That the appellant No.2 most of the time was incurring the
expenses of her parent and the respondent No.1 & 2 have raised
the false contention that the Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge had
various FDs and bank lockers in which he had kept Gold and
silver. That the respondent No.1 & 2 were not even in position to
demonstrate factual aspect that whether Late Shri Rooplal had any
FDs and Bank lockers. Nor any documents were produced in
support of the frivolous contentions raised in plaint and the
temporary injunction application. The only documents produced
were the death certifcate of Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge, legal
notice dated 17/1/2014 sent to appellants to all the Banks at
Bhandara, and the letter to all the Banks to freeze the account of
Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge. Such documents were absolutely
irrelevant for the purposes of the suit in question. The other
document i.e the death certifcate was only the documents which
relates to the death of Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge. That the
respondents are not sure of anything having assumption that Late
Shri Rooplal would might have account in the said bank had made
party to all the Banks which are at Bhandara. It was also not
considered by the learned judge that Shri Rooplal Fulsunge did
not have account in the respondent Nos 5 and 6. In short, none of
the documents was sufcient enough to support the contentions of
the plaintif, leave apart making entitled the plaintif to claim any
relief in his favour.
14. That, the learned trial Court granted ad-interim relief by
passing order impugned without appreciating the aforesaid facts,
circumstances and legal position. It is further submitted that
various allegations made by the plaintif in the suit before the
Court below, were incorrect and improper. Thus, it is clear that
respondent No.1 & 2 are even not confdent and knowing that
whether the late Shri Rooplal was having account in the said
banks or not and this shows the respondent No.1 & 2 are least
concern about the fnancial position of the appellant No.1 and
their father. Such a suit is absolutely not maintainable.
15. Apparently misled by such contentions, the Learned Trial
Judge passed ad-interim ex-parte order of temporary injunction.
Since the said ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction passed by
the Learned Trial Judge is without hearing the appellant and is
causing irreparable losses to the appellants apart from
demonstrating the prejudices and pre-determined mind of the
learned Judge. The appellant is constrained to fle the present
appeal challenging the said order on the following amongst other
grounds.
G R O U N D S
(i) That, the entire approach of the Learned Trial Judge in
dealing with the matter and coming to the conclusion that it is a
case for grant of ad-interim ex-parte relief, is faulty, perverse,
against the settled principles of law and, therefore, the same is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The learned Trial Judge ought to have appreciated that in a
suit for grant of injunction, conduct of the party seeking to get
exercised discretion of the Court, is very much important. The
learned Trial Judge ought to have appreciated the conduct of the
respondent No. 1 & 2 and came to the conclusion that such type of
persons are not entitled to get the relief. By not doing so and
granting ad-interim ex-parte relief in most casual manner, the
learned Trial Judge committed great mistake in the eyes of law.
The order impugned therefore, is liable to be quashed and set
aside.
(iii) That, the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that it has
issued the notices to all the defendants/ present appellants and it
is the appellants/defendant No. 1, who is bound to be afected
more by granting of relief in the matter and therefore, it was
necessary to hear this appellants before granting any relief in the
matter. However, considering the nature of the relief claimed and
the fact that one of the party i.e appellant No.1 is the old aged
women, sufcient days notice ought to have been given to enable
the said party to appear before the Honble Court. Giving with the
notice of a short period and acting against appellants on the basis
of the service of the notice, on the very next working day of the so
called service of notice, was absolutely improper.
(iv) That the entire approach of learned trial judge seems to be
bias as opportunity of hearing was not given to the present
appellants. The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic
concept of principle of natural justice. It is needless to state, the
expression audi alteram partem implies that a person must be
given opportunity to defend himself. It is submitted that the
compulsion of hearing before passing the order implied in the
maxim 'audi alteram partem' applied only to judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings. Having held so the Principles of Natural
Justice have been interpreted by the Honble Supreme Court
prescribing the limits to which they are to be confned. That,
suddenly coming to the Court, fling the suit and arguing the
matter and Court passing an order after listening the counsel for
respondents No.1 & 2 at length without giving an opportunity of
hearing to appellants dose not mean that they have waived their
right of hearing and shall sufer for the adverse order passed
against them, therefore the order passed against the appellants is
against the principal of Natural Justice and needs to be set aside.
v) That the impugned order passed needs to be set aside as the
order impugned is seems to be sought by playing mischief with the
appellants as it is clear that date taken after the order passed is
very long. This makes the picture clear that the order impugned
passed does not stands within the meaning of order passed Under
order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore
the order impugned needs to be set aside.
(vi) It is a settled law that fraud vitiates every thing. The
appellant submits that the manner in which the suit was fled
while suppressing the factual aspects from the Learned Trial
Court, it became very clear case of fraud played with appellants, as
well as other defendants and the Court. It is clear that the
appellants only were the persons, who were bound to be afected
by any order passed in the matter and was fraudulently deprived of
appearance before the Court and thereby ad-interim relief violated
the principles of fair play and natural justice.
(vii) That, the learned Judge did not consider that in the peculiar
facts and circumstances, the appellants are bound to put to sufer
losses in the event of grant of any relief and therefore, it was
necessary to give them sufcient opportunity to present their case
and not to grant any interim relief in absolutely slipshod manner.
Thus, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, is absolutely
perverse and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
(viii)That, the order passed by the learned Trial judge is liable to
be quashed and set aside also on the ground that the
plaintif/respondents has not approached the learned Trial Court
by clean hands and has suppressed various facts from the learned
Trial Court. The suit fled by the plaintifs/respondents was arising
out of the disputes raised by the members of Fulsunge family, who
are the legal heirs of Late Shri Rooplal Fulsunge, the present suit
was fled by giving an impression as if plaintif, who otherwise has
nothing to do in the matter, has some interest in the matter.
(ix) That, the learned trial Judge committed grave mistake in the
eyes of law in not appreciating the settled legal principles properly.
The approach of the Learned Trial Judge was apparently biased in
dealing with the matter, which has resulted into an absolutely
erroneous order. It being the settled law that the biased order is
not an order in the eyes of law, it is liable to be quashed and set
aside.
(x) That, the learned Judge committed great mistake in the eyes
of law by apparently prejudging the issues involved in the matter
and instead of appreciating the facts of the case in the light of
settled legal position it has preferred to base its fnding on
baseless assumptions. While coming to such conclusion, the
learned Judge committed great mistake in not appreciating the
conduct of the respondent No.1& 2 and ignoring the settled
principles for grant of injunction. The order impugned which is
passed on the strength of such erroneous conclusion, is liable to
be quashed and set aside.
16. It is submitted that although the order impugned in this
appeal is an ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction, the manner
in which it was granted and because of the compelling
circumstances relating to the efect of the same, the appellants are
fling the present appeal directly before the Honourable Court,
challenging the said order instead of contesting the matter relating
to the same before the learned Trial Court. The appellants for this
purpose are mentioning bare minimum facts required for showing
to the Honourable Court that the order impugned is bad in the
eyes of law. For this reason, the appellants reserve their right to
make further submissions as and when required.
17. The instant appeal is fled within the period of limitation
and there is no legal impediment as such in entertaining the
same.

18. The appellants have not challenged the order impugned
before any other Court expect this Honourable Court.
PRAYER : It is, therefore,
most humbly prayed that the
Honble Court may kindly be pleased
to :
(a) Call for the record of the
Regular Civil Suit No. 29/2014,
pending on the fles of Civil Judge
Junior Division, Hingna and now
fxed for 29/5/2014;
(b) Peruse the order dated
17/5/2014 passed below Exh. 5,
whereby the learned Judge granted
ex-party ad- interim order
injunction/ Status - Quo and be
further pleased to quash and set
aside the said order after hearing
the appellant and dismiss the said
ad- interim injunction application
fled by the respondents

(c) And be further pleased to pass
such other order and grant such
other relief, as may be deemed ft in
the facts and circumstances of the
facts.
And for which act of kindness, the
applicant would remain duty bound
and ever prayed.
BHANDARA
DATED : _____05.2014 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
I Siddharth s/o. Nandlal Saraf, aged about: 42 years,
Occupation : Business, resident of 53, Saroj, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur,
the appellant as well as authorized representative of the M/s. Fire
Capital Investments, do hereby state on solemn afrmation as
under :
1. That the instant appeal has been drafted by my counsel and
the same is read over and explained to me in vernacular language.
2. That, the contents of paras 1 to _________ as far as they are
based on facts are true and correct to my personal knowledge and
belief . As far as other contents as also grounds from 1 to ______
based on law, are as per the advise given to me by my counsel,
which I believe to be true and correct.
Hence verifed and signed on this ______
th
day of may 2014
at Nagpur.
DEPONENT
I know and identify the deponent.
ADVOCATE.