IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1113 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1367 OF 2008 Vinayak Pandharinath Bhongale ...Appellant Vs. Dagdu Tukaram Kiwle & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Madhav Jamdar, for the Appellant. ..... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 13 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant who is original Defendant No.2 challenging the order of the trial court passed in Special Civil Suit No.114 of 2007 (being Exh.5). 2. The Trial Court has on perusal of the relevant documents and considering the rival contentions at a prima facie stage held that the second defendant/appellant is claiming through respondent no.7 (original defendant no.1.) Respondent No.7 claims through respondent no.6 who is a constituted attorney of the respondent nos.1 to 5. The respondent nos.1 to 6 are original Plaintiffs. The Trial Court has found that the transactions between the respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been put an end to by parties.. In any event, the documents as executed between the respondent nos.6 and 7 did not evidence even prima facie that the possession of the suit land has been handed over by the respondent no.6 to the respondent no.7. 3. In such circumstance, and when the appellant original defendant no.2 is claiming through respondent no.7, then, the trial court is right in concluding that even appellant (original defendant no.2) could not demonstrate that physical possession of the suit land is handed over to him. 4. The order of the Trial Court at this prima facie stage restraining all the defendants from creating obstruction to plaintiff’s possession and further restraining them from creating any third party rights during the pendancy of the suit is justified because it is based on prima facie case made out by the original plaintiff. Further, the trial court has found that the balance of convenience is in their favour and they will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted. The trial court’s order does not suffer from any infirmity and error and it is based on relevant principles, it requires no interference. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The Civil Application does not survive in the light of dismissal of the Appeal. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)