1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1163 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1444 OF 2009 Rutuja Developers ...Appellant Vs. Sanjay Janardan Paigude & Ors.. ... Respondents. ..... None for the Appellant. Mr. A.A. Garge, i/b Ms. Deepali Patil, for the Appellant. ..... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 26 th APRIL, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Shri Garge appearing on behalf of the Appellant- Original Defendant No.3. Perused with his assistance the plaint and the reply to the temporary injunction application, so also the Order under challenge. 2. If what is set out by the Appellant-original Defendant No.3 in the reply is correct factual position, then, Appellant-Defendant No.3 to the suit should have no apprehension of whatsoever nature and the injunction does not concern him. If he has no connection with the suit property he should have no grievance as far as the Order of injunction either. The Appeal is misconceived and untenable and is dismissed accordingly. 2 3. Needless to state that the rejection of this Appeal would not preclude him from pursuing all objections including that the plaint deserves to be rejected so far as he is concerned. 4. The Civil Application does not survive in the light of dismissal of the Appeal from Order. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)