1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4597/2010. Ramesh Chandra. vs. Narayan Lal & Anr. Date : 14.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial court dismissed the petitioner's application for grant of injunction vide order dated 6.8.2008 and appeal against the same, was dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 7.4.2010. The petitioner's contention is that he is mortgagee in possession and the owner of the property is defendant no.1. The defendant no.2 UIT wants to dispossess the mortgagee in possession. The suit has been filed by the mortgagee in possession impleading owner as party in the suit. The alleged owner of the property admitted that the plaintiff is mortgagee in possession. The UIT took the plea that the land in question has been acquired and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right. It appears that two courts below have carefully considered the facts of the case and 2 thereafter, reached to the conclusion concurrently that neither there is a prima-facie case nor there is balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff can suffer irreparable loss. No case is made out for interference of such orders passed by the courts below looking to the total rights of the petitioner who claims to be in possession as mortgagee on count of money advanced by him to the defendant no.1. Further, in view of the facts considered by the courts below, I do not find any error of law or jurisdiction in the orders impugned. In view of the above, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya