1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 32. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 101/2010 [Civil] With CA/8993/2010 In AO/101/2010 (Dr.Sunil Machindra Sanap and another vs. Madhulika w/o Deoraj Kapur and another) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. R.R.Imale, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. V.G.Sakolkar, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr.Anilkumar S.Bajaj, Adv., for R.No.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:29/11/2010 1. Heard. In Special Civil suit No.1/2010, for specific performance of contract, plaintiff asserted to be in possession of the disputed property which the learned Judge did not find favour and rejected Exh.5, said orders are questioned by the plaintiff. 2. Several contentions are raised; one of them from respondent no.2 is, respondent Madhulika is an imposter as 2 original lessee Madhulika Kapur is in abroad and she has not divested her rights in favour of the plaintiff by any legal document. This aspect has been root cause for several other litigations between the parties. Hence, at this stage, no comment on the above assertion. 3. The non development of the property by the original allottee Madhulika resulted in notices of termination by respondent no.2 CIDCO. It is canvassed that it was not served on the respondent or the original allottee. 4. On evaluation of the primary document, the learned Judge found that the plaintiff failed to establish the possession on the property as mere installation of electric meter by itself would not be a proof of possession. The status of defendant no.1 itself is under cloud and there does not appear to be any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. 3 5. The parameters for grant of injunction are illustrated by the Apex Court in Seema Arshad Zaher and others Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and others) (2006 (5) Mah.L.J. 218) which are as under: "(i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of defendant's rights or likely infringement of defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands." Considering these observations of the Apex Court and the factual matrix in the present dispute, it is apparent, there is no error on 4 the part of the learned Judge in rejecting order below Exh.5 and also vacating the order of status quo. If the respondent No.2 CIDCO, in future, desires to deal with the property, it will be with embargo of pending litigation which it will be making public whenever such occasion to deal with the disputed property creeps in. Appeal From Order along with Civil Application disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/101-10 ao