SM 1 903.ao.876.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 876 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1159 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 876 OF 2011 Vashdev Bhroomal Pamnani ....Appellant. Versus M/s. Seth Industries Ltd. and others ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. P. N. Dabholkar for the Appellant. Shri. Birendra Saraf i/b Ms. Pooja Kshirsagar i/b Shri. IC legal for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : OCTOBER 19, 2011. P.C.: The appeal is presented by the original plaintiff taking exception to the order passed on 29th April, 2010 by the Judge, by Bombay City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai in the Notice of Motion no. 1221 of 2009 in L. C. Suit No. 1932 of 2009. It is the contention of the plaintiff that an agreement in respect of the suit property was executed in his favour in the year 1986. However, the owner of the property, repudiated the agreement and alienated the property in favour of the defendants. It is not disputed that the defendant has raised construction after securing appropriate permission from the Municipal Corporation. The construction raised by the defendant has reached upto 22nd floor. The plaintiff in his suit has not claimed for specific performance of the agreement. Moreover, the suit presented on the basis of agreement pertains to the year 1986, and the suit has been SM 2 903.ao.876.11 presented in the year 2009. On consideration of these aspects the Trial Court did not find prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and turned down the application seeking injunction. I do not find any error apparent on face of record in the order passed by the Trial Court. 2. The Appeal from Order is devoid of substance and hence, dismissed. In view of disposal of the Appeal from Order, pending Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of. (R. M. BORDE, J.)