mvp AO301-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 301 OF 2010 Shri Namdeo Anant Gharat and others ).. Appellants Versus Shri Dhanaji Motiram Mhatre and others ).. Respondents Mr. Mane i/b Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for the appellants. None for Respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011 P. C. : By the present Appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 10.02.2010 by which the application filed by the present appellants for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected. The appellants have filed the Suit challenging the sale deed dated 27th June 1997 with respect to the suit property and the subsequent sale deed dated 15th December 2008. The appellants have further claimed relief for declaration that they are the owners of the suit property. Alongwith the Suit an application for temporary injunction came to be filed, which is rejected. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that the predecessor of the appellants was a tenant and in order to give away the mvp AO301-10 tenancy rights, a compromise was arrived at. It is, however, submitted that the said compromise was not complied with in entirety. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court ought to have granted the order of injunction. The perusal of the order impugned reveals that the learned trial Court has found that the transaction which was sought to be challenged was of 1997. It has further been found that the mutation entry with respect to the compromise came to be recorded after the notices have been served on the parties. The learned trial Court has, therefore, found that the appellants have failed to make out a prima-facie case. An interference in an appeal against order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) could be warranted only in the event it is found that view taken by the learned trial court is either impossible or perverse. No impossibility or perversity could be noticed to warrant interference. Hence the Appeal stands rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)