1 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3396 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mrs. S.M. Dandekar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court has dismissed the application for interim injunction. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit. No perversity in the finding recorded by the two courts below is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the petitioner 2 was not in possession of the property, he is not entitled to interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)