1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5102 OF 2006 Mahadev Sitaram Buwa ..Petitioner Vs. Rajaram Ishwara Patil ..Respondent Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioner CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2006 DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2006 DATED : 1ST DECEMBER, 2006 P.C.: 1. The petitioner was a tenant in the house premises owned by the respondent, prior to the demolition of the house which took place in the year 17.3.96. It is not in dispute that after the demolition, the present petitioner started the shop in some other premise on some other place. Aggrieved by the illegal demolition of the premise, the respondent / owner of the property instituted a suit against the Gram Panchayat for mandatory injunction and the suit was decreed in favour of the owner and the owner started the construction and completed the same sometime in the year 2003. 2 2. Apprehending the interference in the construction of the building at the hands of the present petitioner, Regular Civil Suit bearing no.40 of 2003 came to be filed, wherein the order of exparte injunction was passed, which was later on confirmed. After the construction was over, the respondent owner withdrew the suit on 1.1.04. After withdrawal of the suit, the preset petitioner filed a Misc.Application No.2 of 2004 purportedly u.s.144 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restoration of possession by claiming tht he was dispossessed by taking advantage of the injunction order. The application was granted by the trial court. However, in an appeal filed by the respondent before the District Judge, the application came to be rejected on account of appeal being allowed. 3. The first appellate court has categorically recorded a finding that the present petitioner has utterly failed to establish that he was inducted in the suit premises any time after new building was constructed. Further finding is recorded that the 3 petitioner has failed to establish that he was ousted / dispossessed from the suit premises after passing of the exparte injunction order and by so holding, has concluded that no relief u.s.144 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be granted. The record no where indicates that the petitioner was dispossessed after passing the order of injunction by the court in Reg.Civil Suit No.40 of 2003 and hence, the first appellate court is right in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner u.s.144 of C.P.C. There being no merit in the petition. Petition is summarily dismissed. ( SHRI A.P.DESHPANDE, J ) ( SHRI A.P.DESHPANDE, J ) ( SHRI A.P.DESHPANDE, J )