1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL No. 1241 OF 2004 Rangnath Govindrao Uphade died through L.Rs. .. APPELLANTS VERSUS Sangitrao S/o Bhimrao Hake & others ... RESPONDENTS ... Shri V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the appellant CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27th October, 2010. PER COURT : This is plaintiff’s Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction simplictor, against the present respondents/Ori. Defendants, seeking injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession in respect of land Gat No. 38 (Survey No. 18) admeasuring 31 Acres i.e. 12 Hector 55 R situated at Takalgaon. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal, in appeal the Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 2 2. Shri Gunale, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the appellant has shown his right over an area of 6 Hector 27 R of the suit land, in such circumstances, the appellant could not have been denied his right, at least to that extent. He further submitted that in fact appellant has been successful in proving his case and his right, interest and possession over the whole gut number. But even assuming that the Courts below have held that the appellant to be a possessor to the extent of o6 Hector 27 R, then in that circumstances at least injunction protecting his possession to the extent of 6 H 27 R should have been granted. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have gone through the Judgments delivered by the Courts below. Earlier the present plaintiff had instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 197 of 1997 against the predecessor of the present defendants. The said suit was decreed. The defendants are purchasers pendente lite i.e. during the pendency of the proceedings in Regular 3 Civil Suit No. 176 of 1997. In the said suit predecessor in title of the present defendant were restrained by a writ of injunction from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land Gat No.38. 4. It is settled law that though injunction is a relief in personan and it does not run with the land, still the said principle would not be applicable to the purchaser pendente lite. The earlier decree in R.C.S. No. 197 of 1977 was passed against the predecessor in title of the present defendant. The defendants are pendente lite purchasers. 5. The Courts have found that the plaintiff has not given any specification about the boundries of 6 H 27 R of which he claims to be in possession. In such circumstances, the Court could not have granted the decree for injunction. If, the palintiff’s case could have been specific with necessary boundaries in respect of 6 H 27 R, then the Court could have considered the same. But in absence of the specifications the Courts have rightly refused to 4 grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The suit for perpetual injunction of such nature can always be filed on fresh cause of action. The courts below have not committed error while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. In the light of the above, no case is made out by the plaintiff, as such Second Appeal dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J] SDM* 494.10SA