: 1 : 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 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.527 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.89 OF 2007 IN S.C. SUIT NO.82 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.603 OF 2008 Vinod Dilip Shah & Ors. ..Appellants. Vs. Jardine A. Gomes & Ors., through their C.A.Mr.Brayan S.D’Souza ..Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.L.S.Shukla for the Appellants. Mr.B.P. Shukla for Respondent Nos.1 to 6. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2008 DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2008 DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The impugned order warrants no interference. Atleast prima-facie, it is clear that the Appellants were not put in possession pursuant to the agreement dated 5.4.2002. There is nothing on record to show how the Appellants have dealt with the property after the agreement. The fact that an electricity bill is issued in the name of one of the Appellants is of no assistance. It is a bill of the year 2007 i.e. after the termination by the letter dated 23.9.2006. As rightly held by the learned Judge, it : 2 : is also not possible to co-relate the structure mentioned in the agreement with the suit structure. 2. The agreement on the basis of which the Appellant claims to have a right, does not even record that possession was handed over. In fact, the agreement, read as a whole, indicates the contrary. 3. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. Nothing therefore survives in the Civil Application which is also dismissed as such. ***