IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2006 NO. 122 OF 2006 NO. 122 OF 2006 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2772 OF 2001 OF MOTION NO. 2772 OF 2001 OF MOTION NO. 2772 OF 2001 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 3859 OF 2001 NO. 3859 OF 2001 NO. 3859 OF 2001 Vikas Housing Limited. ] .. Appellants (Ori.Plaintiffs) Versus 1. Ravi Ashish Developers Ltd. & 4 ors.] .. Respondents (Ori.Defendants) Mr. R.K. Desai for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Narula with Mr. Anuj Narula i/b M/s. J.H. Narula & Associates for the respondents No.1, 4 & 5. CORAM: R.M. LODHA & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 02ND MARCH, 2006 P.C. : . Heard Mr. R.K. Desai, the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The appellants, who are the original plaintiffs, have failed to show before the learned Motion Judge that they were in possession in respect of land bearing CTS No.620 (Part) or 620A/2. In the absence of any material placed by the plaintiffs to prove prima facie that they were in possession of plots : 2 : bearing CTS No.620 (Part) or 620A/2 obviously their case that they have been forcibly dispossessed could not have been accepted and rightly not accepted by the learned Motion Judge. As regards plot bearing CTS No. 699 (Part), the defendants have undertaken that they would not dispossess the plaintiffs from the said plot nor shall they interfere with the plaintiffs’ possession or encroach upon the said land. 3. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 4. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- [R.M. [R.M. [R.M. LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] Sd/- [ANOOP [ANOOP [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.] V. MOHTA, J.]