1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 891 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1068 OF 2008 Aminmiya Sahebrao Don Since deceased through Legal Representatives Mohamedmiya A Don Since deceased through Legal Representatives Sagir Mohamedmiya Don & ors. : Appellants versus Smt.Kusum Kasim Shaikh and ors. : Respondents. Shri. P.M.Pradhan for the Appellant Ms.Gauri Godse Nos.9 to 24. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 12, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 28th April 2008 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane by which order the Application Exhibit-5 filed by the Plaintiffs for temporary injunction came to be rejected. 2 2. The Plaintiffs claim to be the owners of the Lands bearing Survey Nos.121/2, 133/3, 125/6, 162/1, 31/3 and 127 situated at Kamatghar, Tal.Bhiwandi, Dist Thane, out of which Survey No.133/3 is the suit land. One Usman Gani was declared as a tenant of the land bearing Survey Nos.162/1, 621/2, 125/6 and the suit land bearing Survey No.133/3. This was in the Tenancy Case No.607 of 1968 wherein the Plaintiffs' family was represented by one S M Kazi, who filed a purshis of acceptance of the said Usman Gani as a tenant. Certificates under Sections 32G and 32M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (herein after referred to as the said Act) were issued in favour of the said Usman Gani. The said Usman Gani thereafter has alienated the said suit land bearing Survey No.133/3 which has ultimately come in possession of the Defendant Nos.9 and 10 who have executed a Development Agreement in favour of the Defendant Nos.11 and 24 and it is an admitted position that presently there are buildings standing on the said land the residents of which buildings have constituted themselves into Co-operative Housing Society. 3 3. 32G and 32M Certificates were granted in the life time of the original owner one Mohamed Mulji Miya. It is after the death of the said original owner some time in the year 2002 that the Plaintiffs filed the Tenancy Appeal which came to be dismissed and ultimately the Plaintiffs filed a Revision which, according to the Plaintiffs, is pending, but according to the learned counsel for the Defendant Nos.9 to 24, the same has been dismissed for default. 4. The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs states that a restoration application has been filed which is kept on 2nd March 2009 for hearing. The Plaintiffs therefore filed Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2008 for a mandatory order of demolition of the buildings standing on the suit land and for possession of the suit land. In the said suit the Plaintiffs filed an Application Exhibit -5 for temporary injunction which came to be rejected. 4 The trial Court has rejected the said Application Exhibit-5 inter alia on the ground that the order passed by the Revenue Authorities under Sections 32G and 32M of the said Act was not challenged by the original owner in his life time and was done for the first time by the Plaintiffs in the year 2002. The suit filed in the year 2008 was therefore belated. The trial Court also took into consideration the fact that the suit property has already been developed and at present buildings of the co-operative societies are standing thereon. The trial Court was therefore of the view that the Plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Plaintiffs. 5. Having considered the reasons mentioned by the trial Court in the impugned order, in my view, the said reasons cannot be faulted with. There is therefore no merit in the above Appeal from Order. 6. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 5 7. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal, the Civil Application No.1068 of 2008 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]