: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.847 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO.847 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO.847 OF 2006 The Sangli Bank Ltd., Sangli ...Appellant V/s. Maharashtra Industrial Development . Corporation, Miraj & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Nana D. Yelkar, Advocate, for the Appellant Mr.P.P. Chavan with Ms.Reshma Nathani, Advocates, i/b. Navdeep Vora & Associates, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate appearing for the appellant. Appellant is the original plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff is a Banking Company. The 1st respondent (1st defendant) is the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. There was a lease granted by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of a plot. The 2nd respondent had taken financial assistance from the United Western Bank Ltd. and there was a tripartite agreement to which the 1st and 2nd respondents and the said United Western Bank were parties. 2. The case of the appellant is that in the year : 2 : 1996, the 2nd respondent paid the dues of the said United Western Bank Ltd., and as the appellant-Bank was a Member of consortium, the United Western Bank Ltd. consented for creation of a charge over the suit plot in favour of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant-Bank has acquired interest in the suit plot by virtue of the said charge. The case of the appellant was that the 1st respondent started demolishing the compound wall constructed alongwith the boundary of the suit plot and the said respondent is trying to encroach upon the suit plot on which the appellant was having a charge. Therefore, a suit for injunction was filed by the appellant. 3. The suit was contested by the 1st respondent-MIDC. It was contended that there was no agreement between the appellant and the 1st respondent. It was contended that the appellant and the 2nd respondent have collusively filed the suit. It was contended that at no stage the 1st respondent has granted consent to the 2nd respondent for creating a charge over the suit plot in favour of the appellant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The Trial Court held that the 1st respondent was not a party to any tripartite agreement. The Trial Court : 3 : held that the appellant-plaintiff has failed to establish that any charge was created by the 2nd defendant-2nd respondent over the suit property in favour of the appellant. In Appeal preferred by the appellant, the findings have been confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. 4. The learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on letter dated 4th May, 2000 addressed by the United Western Bank Ltd. to the appellant. He submitted that in view of the said letter, the appellant being a lead bank in the consortium, the charge in favour of the appellant continued. 5. I have considered the submissions. A finding of fact has been recorded that there was no tripartite agreement to which the 1st respondent and the appellant-Bank were parties. The Courts below held that there were no specific averments in the plaint regarding any finance advanced by the appellant to the 2nd respondent. The Courts below and especially Appellate Court observed that as the 1st respondent was admittedly the lessor of the suit plot, it was necessary for the appellant to obtain consent of the 1st respondent before creation of charge in its favour : 4 : and there was nothing on record to show that such a consent was obtained. 6. Considering all these aspects, Courts below have held that the appellants cannot claim any right, title or interest in the suit plot. The letter dated 4th May, 2000 relied upon by the Advocate for the appellant does not prove creation of any charge in favour of the appellant over the suit plot. 7. In view of concurrent findings of facts, no substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.1349 of 2006 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]