ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. 3. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon dated 26th June, 2006 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.32 of 2005. 4. The Petitioner is plaintiffand Respondents are defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2005. Copy of the suit is annexed with the petition. It is pleaded by the Petitioner in the suit that he retired from Public Works Department of the State Government. He was working as Electrical Engineer. After retirement, somewhere in the year 1992, he has started a business in partnership viz. Ujjwal Industry. This business is owned and controlled by him alone. He has made a statement in the suit that he has no concern with his son Milind Bhaskar Chaudhari who resides at M-160, M.I.D.C., Jalgaon along with his wife and children since beginning. He has also made a statement with his son Milind and he himself are not doing any business in partnership or otherwise. The officers of defendant No.2 made inquiry in relation to his son Milind number of times. He had clarified that he has no concern with financial matters of his son Milind. Neither his son Milind is residing along with him. Regarding the suit property, he has made a statement that it is owned by himself. He has also made a statement in the suit that he was not principal borrower, guarantor or has any concern with the loan raised by his son Milind from defendants. He is not responsible or liable to make the repayment of the said loan. He had undergone angiography on 26th December, 2000 and angioplasty on 29th January, 2001 at Pune. He is under mental depression on account of the threats given by the defendants on 6th January, 2005. He was also threatened by the defendants that they would put the house property on auction. According to him, defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit property. With these pleadings, prayer made in the suit is for perpetual injunction against the defendants in relation to enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. In other words, the suit is only for perpetual injunction against the defendants, in relation to enjoyment by the plaintiff. . According to him, defendants have no concern whatsoever with the suit property. With these pleadings, prayer made in the suit is for perpetual injunction against the defendants in relation to enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. In other words, the suit is only for perpetual injunction against the defendants, in relation to enjoyment by the plaintiff. . The suit seems to have been filed on 18th January, 2005. This suit has been followed by an application for temporary injunction against the Respondents. The defendants, after entering appearance, have filed reply to the application below Exhibit-6 for temporary injunction. Advocate for the Respondents, after denial, has read over the written statement/ reply given by the defendants in the trial Court. In para 10, it is pleaded by the defendants that son of the plaintiff Mr. Milind has raised a loan from defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 8th January, 2001. It was a loan for amount of Rs.2,02,000/-. The loan is on the basis of hire-purchase agreement. Purpose of the loan was for purchase of computer. There are guarantors and principal borrower as well as guarantors have executed various documents in favour of the defendants. Amount of loan is disbursed to principal borrower Milind by various cheques. Loan was not repaid. Proceeding under section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act, for short) was initiated against Milind and others. After giving opportunity, certificate has been issued by the competent authority. Thereafter, proceeding under Rule 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (the Rules, for short) is initiated against Milind. On 6th January, 2005, in a drive for recovery, plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Recovery Officer in relation to loan raised by his son Milind. Plaintiff, on that day, had also given a cheque for Rs.40,000/-. It was post dated cheque for 20th January, 2005. Demand was made to the plaintiff to make the repayment of loan of his son Milind on or before 15th February, 2005. Plaintiff has also allegedly signed the recovery register in relation to loan of his son Milind. That time, daughter-in-law of the plaintiff i.e. wife of Milind was present in the house. Suffice it to note that pleading in relation to maintainability of the suit, in view of the provision laid down under section 164 of the Act was not raised. 5. That time, daughter-in-law of the plaintiff i.e. wife of Milind was present in the house. Suffice it to note that pleading in relation to maintainability of the suit, in view of the provision laid down under section 164 of the Act was not raised. 5. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Courts below. It seems that such argument in relation to section 164 of the Act was not addressed to the Courts below on behalf of the defendants. However, such argument is canvassed on behalf of the defendants now before this Court. 6. The trial Court rejected the application and said order is confirmed by the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court observed that the suit property is inherited by the plaintiff. It is ancestral property. Mr. Milind, son of the plaintiff, is having undivided share in the property. This property can be put to auction by the defendants. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants has invited my attention to provision laid down under section 41 (a) and 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is provided under section 41 (a) that injunction can be refused to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought unless such restrain is necessary to prevent multiplicity of the proceedings. In the present case, it is revealed from the prayer clause, in the plaint itself, that injunction regarding enjoyment of the suit property is sought by the plaintiff, in the suit. Application for temporary injunction makes a prayer that the defendants themselves, or through their agents, servants, shall not obstruct enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. This injunction, as noted above, is refused. it is significant to note that no injunction is sought to recovery proceedings or certificate issued by the competent authority under section 101 of the Act. In that eventuality, Court shall not grant such injunction. . Another provision relied on by the learned counsel for the defendants is under section 41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act. It provides that injunction can be refused when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. This provision has no application to the facts obtaining in the case on hand. Plaintiff, in the suit, claims to be the owner of the suit property. It provides that injunction can be refused when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter. This provision has no application to the facts obtaining in the case on hand. Plaintiff, in the suit, claims to be the owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has made a statement that he has no concern with the loan raised by his son Milind. Civil Court is called upon to consider the suit for perpetual injunction in relation to the property described in the suit. At this stage, it is very difficult to record a finding that the plaintiff has absolutely no interest in the suit property described in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2005. 8. The maintainability of the suit, in such interlocutory matter, especially when no ground was taken either in the pleadings or before the Courts below, is difficult to be accepted, at this stage. However, considering the fact situation, I am leaving this point open to be agitated before the trial Court by the parties concerned. 9. While considering the prayer for temporary injunction the Court has to consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, if any. Prima facie, it can be said that the plaintiff is having interest in the suit property. However, at this stage, it is to be noted that provision laid down under Rule 107 of the Rules permits the recovery officer to proceed with the recovery proceedings, by attachment and sell or sell without attachment of the property of the person against whom such decree, decision, Award or order has been obtained or passed. Thus, all that is contemplated under Rule 107 (i) (e) of the Rules, is to effect the recovery by attachment or property or by sell without attachment of the property of the person against whom decree, decision, Award or order has been obtained or passed. In the case on hand, said Award/ certificate under section 101 of the Act seems to have been issued against Mr. Milind, son of the present petitioner. To that extent, defendants are at liberty to execute the said certificate in relation to and restricted to property or interest of Milind, son of the present Petitioner. Beyond this, defendants cannot extend any harassment to the plaintiff in relation to his enjoyment of the suit property. Milind, son of the present petitioner. To that extent, defendants are at liberty to execute the said certificate in relation to and restricted to property or interest of Milind, son of the present Petitioner. Beyond this, defendants cannot extend any harassment to the plaintiff in relation to his enjoyment of the suit property. It appears that the Courts below have been swayed away and have considered the proceeding as if recovery proceeding is tried to be stalled by filing of the present suit by the plaintiff in the Civil Court. In my view, finding of the Courts below to that extent is perverse and needs to be quashed and set aside. 10. This writ petition, therefore, is partly allowed. Orders impugned in this writ petition are quashed and set aside. Temporary injunction against the defendants, limited to the interest of the plaintiff, in relation to the suit property, is granted, against the defendants. It is made clear that the defendants are at liberty to execute/ effect recovery of the amount of loan and costs under certificate under section 101 of the Act in relation to interest and/ or property of Mr. Milind Bhaskar Chaudhari, including the suit property. Defendants are at liberty to raise the ground in respect of maintainability of the suit in accordance with the provisions of law. . Suit is of 2005. Learned Judge, seized with the suit, shall decide and dispose of the suit expeditiously by the end of 31st March, 2008. Parties, through their counsel, have assured cooperation for early disposal of the suit.