1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.636 OF 2009 Smt.Pradnya Suhas Mahtre .. Appellant Versus Pandurang Tukaram Dali .. Respondent Ms.Anulata holding for Ms.Gauri Godse for appellant Mr.Yogesh Dandekar for respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th April 2010. P.C.: 1] The trial court has rejected an application for interim reliefs filed by the appellant - plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.179 of 2008 and that is how the appellant has challenged the said order in this appeal. 2] Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length and perused with her assistance the order under challenge, the plaint and relevant documents, I am of the opinion that the application for injunction has been rejected, essentially on the prima facie finding that the extent of encroachment by original defendant No.3 - respondent No.3 to this appeal 2 has not been set out and specified. 3] My attention is invited to some documents and it is contended that when the trial court has prima facie held that the appellant has proved the title to the land held by her, then survey map and other documents would show the remaining land and the trial court could not have rejected the application for interim reliefs. 4] On a reading of the order passed by the trial court, it is apparent that the extent of encroachment having not been specified and the relevant documents in that behalf not produced for perusal of the trial court, even at the prima facie stage, that the subject application for interim injunction has been rejected. This finding does not require any interference. At this stage because, it is not demonstrated to be palpably illegal or erroneous. Appeal is, therefore, disposed of with liberty reserved to the appellant - plaintiff to apply for interim reliefs at a later stage when the extent of the encroachment, the relevant documents in relation to the boundaries of the suit property and the remaining property are brought on record. If the said documents are placed before the trial court, then, the plaintiff - appellant can seek appropriate interim relief so 3 as to protect her property and if such an application is made, the trial court to consider it on merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in the order under challenge. The trial court to consider such application after hearing both sides and perusing the relevant documents placed by them. The appeal is disposed of with liberty as above. Needless to state that if any construction has been made by respondent No.3, that would always be subject to further orders of the trial court and no equities can be claimed merely because the construction activities are progressing at site. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)