: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.331 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.691 OF 2005 Begambai mother Chandrabai Naikin .. Applicant V/s. Balasaheb mother Chandrabai Naikin deceased thru his LRs. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for the applicant Ms. Deepali Patil i/by A.A. Garge for respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/5. ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. This application is filed by the applicant so as to seek order of injunction restraining the respondents from creating third party rights. The first appeal came to be admitted in the year 2007 at that time, the civil application was not filed. This civil application is filed in January, 2009 i.e. practically after two years. : 2 : 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Mankapure for the applicant, Ms. Patil for the respondents. Learned advocate Mr. Mankapure pointed out that City Survey record has been modified by the respondents and their names are shown on record. I have looked into that aspect of the matter and it is seen that the said change is brought in the City Survey record on the basis of judgment delivered by the Courts below and no fault can be found in that behalf. Accordingly to Mr. Mankapure the mere fact that the respondents brought their names on record is indication that the respondents are likely to create third party rights. In my view, this contention cannot be accepted because the names of the respondents are brought on record by legal process. If it was the case of the applicant that respondents are likely to create third party rights, it was necessary for the applicant to bring on record cogent and sufficient material in the nature of specific facts on the basis of which this application is filed. There is not a single allegation levelled against the respondents by quoting the fact that on the basis of this fact the applicant came to the conclusion that there is a possibility of respondents : 3 : creating third party rights. 3. As a result of this observation, the main argument of the applicant that the respondents are likely to create third party rights cannot be accepted in the absence of appropriate facts and record. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mankapure submitted that the respondents are paying electricity bill in respect of entire property and that the respondents are also paying property tax. In my view, mere fact that respondents are paying electricity bills as well as property tax that by itself will not mean that they are likely to create third party rights, to that extent also argument is rejected. There is nothing on record to come to the prima facie conclusion that respondents are likely to create third party rights. Hence, this application cannot be accepted. Hence, the order. ORDER . Civil Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)