1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.109 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2009 Elmo Peter Dyas & ors ..Appellants V/s Shaikh Tanveer Ahmed & ors ..Respondents Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar i/b.M/s.Khandeparkar & Associates, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.A.R.Patil with Ms.Komal Patil i/b.M/s.Divya Shah Associates, Advocate, for the respondent No.2 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . The above appeal takes exception to the Order dated 12th December, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai by which order Notice of Motion filed by the appellants/plaintiffs came to be rejected. 2. The appellants/plaintifs have filed Long Cause Suit 2 No.1587/08 for injunction against the defendant Nos.1 & 2. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed Notice of Motion which came to be numbered as Exh.5. In the said motion various reliefs in the nature of mandatory orders were prayed for, however, at the hearing of the motion only prayer clause(b) was pressed for. The said prayer clause (b) is to the effect that the Court should direct the Superintendent of Land Records to measure C.T.S No.A/700 and C.T.S No.A/701 which belong to the defendant Nos.1 &2 and CTS No.A/702 which belongs to the plaintiffs. The Trial Court rejected the said relief sought by the plaintiffs on the ground that the Court cannot be an instrument for collection of evidence. The Trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff should stand on their own feet. The trial Court also was of the view that the plaintiffs could not seek the relief of possession in a suit for injunction which they had filed. The Trial Court whilst rejecting the Motion took into consideration that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 had already got their property demarcated and got their plans sanctioned from the BMC and had also obtained Commencement Certificate pursuant to which they have completed the construction of the building. 3 3. Having considered the impugned order and the reasons cited by the Trial Court for rejecting the plaintiffs' Notice of Motion as contained in paragraph 6 of the order, in my view, no fault could be found with the impugned order. The Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissalof the Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of as such. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)