1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 135 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 159 OF 2009 Mr. Amit S/o Ramanand Patwa .. Appellant V/s. Mr. Laxman Baburam Patwa & Ors .. Respondents Shri. D.J. Lulia for the Appellants Shri. B.S. Nayak for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 Coram : R.M. Savant, J. Date : 26th February, 2009. P.C.: 1. This Appeal challenges the order dated 12.01.2009 passed by Ld. Judge of the City Civil Court by which order, ad-interim reliefs sought by the Appellant / Plaintiff came to be rejected. The Appellant / Plaintiff filed S.C. Suit No. 49 of 2009 apprehending dispossession at the hands of the Respondents i.e the Defendants in the suit. In the said suit, the Appellant / Plaintiff filed notice of Motion. Said Motion was moved for ad-interim reliefs, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. Rma AO127109260209.sxw 2 2. The Appellant has relied upon various documents in support of his case of being in exclusive possession of the suit premises, namely Shop and Establishment License, telephone bills, electricity bills in his name. However, rent receipt in respect of suit premises in question stands in joint name of Appellant and Defendant No. 1 in the said suit i.e the Respondent No. 1 herein. The Trial Court considering the fact that the name of the Defendant No.1 also appears in the said rent receipt came to conclusion that though the other documents are in the name of the Appellant / Plaintiff, the reliefs sought at the ad-interim stage could not be granted. 3. In so far as the Shop and Establishment License is concerned, it is subject to certain conditions laid down by the local authority i.e the Municipal Corporation has reserved the right to cancel the same if conditions mentioned therein are found to be breached. In so far as the electricity bill is concerned, it is the case of the Defendant No. 1 that a separate meter has been got installed by the Plaintiff by forging signature of the Defendant on the application made for which the Rma AO127109260209.sxw 3 Defendant No. 1 would be adopting appropriate proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the Defendant No. 1, said application is signed in Hindi whereas the Defendant No. 1 is a graduate who signs in English. The said aspect would, therefore, be gone into at the Notice of Motion hearing stage. I am informed by the learned counsel that the Notice of Motion is kept for hearing on 5th March 2009. 4. Considering the reasons cited by the Trial Court for refusing ad- interim reliefs, in my view, no fault can be found with the impugned order. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for for in the impugned order. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. Needles to say that the Motion would be decided on its own merit and in accordance with law. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 7. In view of dismissal of above Appeal from Order, the Civil Rma AO127109260209.sxw 4 Application No 159 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. (R.M. Savant, J) Rma AO127109260209.sxw