1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8098 OF 2006 Runja Shankar Shelke .. Petitioner Versus Baburao Atyaba Shelke & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Girish S. Godbole for the petitioner. Mr.Anilkumar Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7th August 2009. P.C.: . The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the 4th defendant. He applied for temporary injunction on 09th May 2003. The application for temporary injunction was made to protect his alleged possession over the suit property. The said application was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 21st September 2005. An appeal was preferred against the said order which has been dismissed by the order dated 01st April 2006. These two orders are subject matter of challenge in this petition. The learned counsel appearing 2 for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of T. T.Laxshmipathi & Ors Vs. P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors [(2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 150]. He submitted that the revenue authorities have accepted that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property and even after the accepting that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property, the Courts below have declined to grant temporary injunction. 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. The relief on temporary injunction is discretionary and equitable relief. The impugned orders have been passed on 21st September 2005 and 01st April 2006 respectively. It is not in dispute that from 21st September 2005, there is no interim or ad-interim order operating in favour of the petitioner. Though the petition is pending in this Court from the year 2006, this Court has not granted any ad-interim relief in favour of the petitioner. The suit is still pending. No case is made out for interference with the discretionary orders passed by the Courts below. Writ petition 3 is rejected. It is however made clear that the suit will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the rejection of prayer made by the petitioner for grant of interim relief. (A.S.OKA,J)