(1) (908) AO 118/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Amk APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 118 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 180 OF 2011 M/s. Vrunda’s Construction Co. .. Appellant Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. .. Respondent Mr. Harinder Toor a/w. Mr. S. B. Pawar a/w. Ms. Swati Sawant i/b S. K. Legal Associates for the Appellant. Ms. K. K. Soran for the Respondent-MMC. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 17 th August, 2011. P.C. 1. The Appellant filed the Suit against the Respondent for protection against dispossession. The Appellant must primarily show his actual possession. The Appellant failed to show that. The Appellant claims to be in possession under a registered Development Agreement. The possession actually taken under any possession letter is not shown by any documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence to show that he was put in possession or continued in possession or continued his development is also not shown. 2. The Defendant has shown that the Defendants have been put in possession under a specific letter of possession from the maintenance survey of ULC under Urban Land Ceiling Act since 09.06.1981. The Defendants have also shown their property register (2) (908) AO 118/11 card. 3. Mr. Toor argues even if the Defendant is put possession, it must sue for recovery of possession by following due legal process which can only be effectuated by a Suit filed under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act. That proposition of law which the Plaintiff relies upon cannot be applied unless the Plaintiff shows his own actual possession. 4. Because the Plaintiff cannot show the actual possession, he cannot apply for appointment of the Court Commissioner to show his possession. Possession of immovable property can be shown by the Plaintiff only by the actual possession evidenced by the plans or photographs or by circumstantial evidence. No officer of the Court can show possession of any party as on the date of the Suit. Any possession of the party after the date of the Suit seen by the officer of the Court is not material. The very prayer of the Plaintiff shows that it is taken out as the Plaintiff cannot justify his actual possession. 5. The impugned order is correct. The Appeal is dismissed. 6. The Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)