1 AO 880-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 880 OF 2010 Nandkishor Nathmal Pallod ...Appellant (Orig.Plaintiff) vs. Chandu Arjun Kadam ...Respondent (Orig.Defendant) Mr.V. Patankar for the Applicant. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : JANUARY 17, 2011 P.C :- 1 The appellant challenges the Order dated 18th December, 2009 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, vide which the application (Exhibit-5) for grant of temporary injunction came to be rejected. 2 The plaintiff raises his claim on the basis of Agreement of Sale dated 1st August, 1996, which, according to the plaintiff, came to be registered on 2 AO 880-2010 2nd August, 1996. The learned trial court found that the respondent-defendant had purchased the suit property from its original owner on the basis of Sale Deed dated 30th May, 2001. It has further been found from the documents on record that the defendant had prima facie established that he was in possession of the suit premises and that in the revenue records, his name was recorded. It has been found that the Municipal Records also show the name of the defendant. 4 The scope of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC is limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the learned trial court is perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to upset the same. Equally it is not permissible for this Court to reverse the order of the trial court if it finds that there are two views possible and the other view than the one taken by the trial court is more correct view. 3 AO 880-2010 5 No perversity is noticed in the Order of the learned trial court. In any case, the suit is filed in 2007 and as such, there is no order operating in favour of the appellant for more than three years and three months. In my view, any interference at this stage is unwarranted. In any case, the rights of the present appellant, if any, are protected under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. 6 Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application. The same is also disposed of. (B.R. GAVAI, J.)