1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4440 OF 2009 Pramod Nandlal Lunia & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Satish Kantilal Shah & anr. ..Respondents Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 2ND MAY, 2009 P.C. . This petition takes exeception to the Order passed by the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court by which orders the interim injunction sought by the petitioners has been rejected. 2. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who have filed Regular Civil Suit No.73 of 2009 against the respondents herein. The graveman of the allegations in the plaint is that the respondents in the process of putting up a new construction are encroaching upon the 2 property of the petitioners/plaintiffs. It is the case of the petitioners that the area of the plot of the respondents is 71.7 Sq.Meter which according to them is mentioned in the statement by the respondents before the Revenue Authorities. However, the respondents rely upon the property card of the year 1964 onwards wherein the area mentioned was 72.7 Sq.Meter. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have committed an encroachment on the area of 137 Sq.Feet. The said factual position was not accepted by the Courts below on the ground that it was not backed by necessary pleadings in that behalf. 3. Admittedly, the respondents have commenced construction pursuant to the permission granted by the Satara Municipal Council on 15th December, 2008. In terms of the said permission, the construction of the basement by the respondents is towards the backside of their plot. On the backside the plaintiffs have only a tin shed as recorded by the Courts below and therefore, according to the Courts below no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below on consideration of the facts that were before them 3 came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not made out any case for the grant of the discretionary relief of injunction. 4. The reliance of the petitioners on the Judgment of the Apex Court in matter of Ram Kumar Barnwal versus Ram Lakhan (dead) reported in 2007 (5) Supreme 53 in the facts of the present case is misplaced. 5. I have perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. I do not find any illegality or perversity for this Court to interference in its Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)