1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. SECOND APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2010. SHRI. GURU SHIRODKAR …... Appellant. V/S SHRI. KESHAV FERNANDES …... Respondent. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Advocate for the appellant. Coram:-A. P. LAVANDE,J Date:- 26th October, 2010. ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. G. Shirodkar, learned Advocate for the appellant. 2. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 2.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal no. 60/2008 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the Judgment and decree dated 21.6.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji in Special Civil Suit no. 23/1996/B/A(old)/Regular Civil Suit no.516/2000/B/C(new) whereby the trial Court dismissed the suit. 3. The original plaintiff filed the above suit against the 2 respondent for permanent and mandatory injunction. In the written statement filed by the defendants, defendants have stated that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the lower Appellate Court held against the appellant. 4. According to the appellant he is entitled to the relief sought for since in earlier suit there was injunction operating in respect of the suit property. 5. Having heard the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out by the appellant for interference by this Court in the Second Appeal. The trial Court has dismissed the suit holding that the appellant has no locus standi. The record discloses that appellant is neither in possession nor has a crystalised title in his favour, and as such, the suit for injunction simpliciter filed by the appellant was rightly dismissed. Admittedly, in the earlier order passed, the respondents were not parties and as such, the argument of the appellant that the appellant is entitled to the relief against the respondents on the basis of the said order, does not hold any merit. 3 6. In any event, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal and hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. Lavande, J. vn*