1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5053 OF 2009 Mahadev Ganpati Powar & Ors ...Petitioners vs. Pandit Krishna Kale & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioners Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MAY 3, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Appellate Court has committed an error by vacating the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners. He submitted that the first respondent who is the first defendant had filed an affidavit in the earlier suit filed by the petitioners and others. He submitted that the 1st respondent stated in the said affidavit that the predecessor of the petitioners was in possession of the suit property. He submitted that in absence of any evidence produced by the first respondent to show that he was placed in possession after the aforesaid affidavit was filed, the petitioners were entitled to temporary injunction. He submitted that the Authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 has upheld the right of the petitioner as a tenant. 2 I have considered the submissions. The Appellate Court relied upon the Judgment in R.C.S.No.96/1983 filed by the predecessor of the petitioners-landlords. In the said suit, the Civil Court held that the predecessor of 2 the petitioners failed to prove his lawful possession over the the suit property. During the pendency of the said suit, the predecessor of the petitioners died and the present of the petitioners were made parties as legal representatives of the predecessor of the petitioners. There was an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the decree of dismissal passed in the suit in which no interim relief has been granted. It is true that the first respondent filed an affidavit in support of the petitioners in the said suit. However, as of today, the finding of the civil Court is that the petitioners have failed to prove their lawful possession over the suit property and in the Appeal preferred by the petitioners against the decree dismissing their suit, there is no interim relief granted. Therefore, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order by which discretionary relief of temporary injunction was not granted in favour of the petitioners. Petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the parties on merits of the pending suit and Appeal are kept open. JUDGE