gst 1 caa1795.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1795 OF 2010. IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1449 OF 2010. Sunita G. Sharma & Ors. ... .... .... Appellants. V/s MHADA & Ors. .... . .... ..... Respondents. Ms.Anita Castellino i/by Raymond V. Samuel, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.P.G.Lad, Adv. For the respondents. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 6th Jan., 2011. PC: By way of present appeal the appellant challenges the order dated 18.11.2010 by which the notice of motion filed by the present appellant is dismissed. 2. The notice of motion was filed by the present appellant praying for appointment of Court Commissioner and pending his report an order of injunction. 3. However it appears that with consent of the parties notice of motion was taken up for final hearing and after hearing it was dismissed. 4. It further appears that in the said suit there was an earlier notice of motion filed by the present appellant. In the said notice of motion rights of the appellant were duly protected by the learned trial court by directing that the gst 2 caa1795.10.sxw respondent-MHADA shall follow due process of law in the event they so desire to dispossess the appellant. From the record it is also clear that respondent- MHADA has taken specific stand that they are not concerned with the land of the appellant which allegedly at Chandivli. Learned trial court while rejecting the motion has given sound and cogent reasons. The interference in an appeal against the order under order 43 rule 1 is permissible only if it is found that the view taken by the trial court is impossible view. From perusal of the order it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned trial Court is impossible view so as to warrant interference. Hence appeal stands rejected.