1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7762 OF 2008 Shri Ramnath Lahu Tare and 5 others. ..Petitioners. Versus Shri Gokaran Vaman Mhatre and 6 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Amol Mhatre, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Suresh Barne, Advocate i/b. Ms.Tanjua Prabhudesai, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ DATED : 6TH MAY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioners orig.plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit No.419 of 2007 before the C.J.J.D. At Bhiwandi for permanent injunction against the respondents. In the said Suit, Exh.5 application came to be filed for temporary injunction. Both the orders i.e. oder dated 1.10.2007 and the order of the very same Judge dated 18.8.2008 make it clear that the respondents – orig.defendants were ordered not obstruct the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit property. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that despite the order 2 granting temporary injunction, the respondents have stored the sand on the premises of the petitioners and thus encroached on the plot in question. The learned Advocate for the petitioners states that even after the order dated 1.10.2007 was passed by the trial Court, the respondents had encroached on his land by storing the sand. Hence, he preferred an application before the trial Court for police protection in order to assist him to remove the encroachment by the respondents. The said application came to be rejected. Hence, this Petition. 4. The learned Advocate for the respondent states that they have not stored any sand nor they have in any way encroached on the plot of the petitioners. He stated that the very same fact has been stated by respondent No.1 in his affidavit in the application of the plaintiffs for police protection before the trial Court. In the said affidavit it is stated as under : “I say that, I or any of the defendants neither disobeyed the order of this Court, nor encroached or threatened the plaintiff to cause them dispossession of their property.” 5. The learned Advocate for the respondents further stated that even as of today there is no encroachment by the respondents on the land of the petitioners. The said statement is accepted. In view of the orders dated 1.10.2007 and 18.8.2008 it is clear that the respondents have been ordered not to obstruct the plaintiffs possession over the suit 3 property. In view of these orders, henceforth in future also the respondent shall not in any way create any encroachment on the property of the petitioners or cause any obstruction in the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit property. In view of the statements, I am of the opinion that at this stage, police protection would not be necessary. Hence, at this stage I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. However, it is made clear that in future, in case, necessity arises, it would be open to the petitioners to take necessary steps as deemed fit. 6. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to cosds. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]