IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4045 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO. 3433 OF 2005 Shyamsunder R. Chabe.... ...... ......Plaintiff. V/s Nagindas Rathod & Ors. ...... ....Defendants. Mr.V.R.Tripathi, Adv. For the plaintiff. Mr.B.B.Saraf i/by Krishna Tanna, Adv. For the defendants. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 29/4/08 PC: The plaintiff has instituted instant suit seeking declaration that the plaintiff is in adverse possession of the suit land admeasuring 508 sq. yds. bearing CS No.74. The plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion seeking relief of injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's exclusive possession of the suit land. A perusal of para 6 of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit premises on 3.12.05. A prayer for ad- interim injunction came to be rejected by this Court by an order dated 21.12.05. According to the plaintiff he was keeping buffaloes on the suit property. About a statement made by the learned counsel while pressing the motion for ad-interim reliefs this Court has observed 1 thus: “Mr.Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff fairly conceded that at no stage had his possession become adverse in the legal sense.” As the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff conceded that the possession of the plaintiff is not adverse the prayer for ad-interim relief was rejected. The plaintiff is neither in possession of the property nor has he made out prima facie good case to establish his claim by adverse possession. The factum of possession will have to be gone into only when both the parties lead their evidence during trial of the Suit. Admittedly defendants 1 to 3 are owners of the property and have entered into an agreement of development with defendant No.4. The plaintiff has utterly failed to make out prima facie case for claiming injunction against real owners. In view of the concession made available by the counsel before this Court when order dated 21.12.05 came to be passed it has to be concluded that no case had been made out by the plaintiff. In the event if injunction as prayed for is granted same is bound to result in causing irreparable loss to the defendants and the defendants would suffer utmost inconvenience. In the result there being no merit in the notice of motion same is dismissed. According to the defendants the plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit land. 29.4.08 2