1 Farad Continuation Sheet IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 22 OF 2010 Kuldeep S/o Chudamaniji Dubey, Aged about 29 years, Occu.- Business, R/o Sharda Chowk, Pardi, Bhandara Road, Nagpur. …...Applicant ...VERSUS... 1] Shreekumar Motilalji Modi, Aged about 70 years, Occu. Business, R/o Parvanpura, Jain Mandir, Itwari, Maskasath Chowk, Nagpur. 2] The Wholesale Cloth Yard Merchant Association, The Co-operative Wholesale Cloth Market-cum-House Building, Nanga Putla Chowk, Gandhibagh, Nagpur. ......Respondents =-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. Amit Khare, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. J.A.Anthony, Advocate for Respondent no.1. None for respondent no.2 CORAM : Smt. R. P. SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 3rd March, 2010. This Civil Revision Application challenges the order dated 10th February, 2010, by which the District Court, Nagpur allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and set aside the order of interim injunction granted by the trial court in favour of the applicant. The injunction granted was to restrain the respondents from disturbing the possession of the revision 2 applicant of the suit premises. Admittedly, on the date of filing of the revision application the revision applicant was no more in possession of the suit premises. He was allegedly dispossessed forcibly on 4th January, 2010. Thereafter, on 11th January, 2010, he has filed suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In the circumstances, the applicant's suit for injunction has become infructuous. Consequently, the present Civil Revision Application does not survive. The learned counsel for the revision applicant, however, submits that the only reason for filing the revision application is the apprehension felt by the revision applicant that the observations of the District Court in its impugned order as regards claim of the tenancy of the applicant in respect of the suit premises, may create hurdle for the applicant when the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is heard. The apprehension is wholly misplaced as the observations of the District Court are based on prima facie consideration of the matter. The Civil Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale