c.a.1866.10 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1866/2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.693/2010 Rajaram V.Parkhi & Ors. Appellants Vs. Baban D.Parkhi & Ors. Respondents Mr.S.D.Thokade a/w Mr.D.B.Honkar for Appellant Mr.N.V.Walawalkar,Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.Rajesh More for Res.1 & 2 CORAM-G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE - 23rd SEPTEMBER,2011 P.C. . Heard Mr.Thokade for the Appellant. 2 The Second Appeal is filed by the original Plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed and the Appeal filed by him in the District Court has also been dismissed . Earlier this Civil Application had been rejected and was numbered as rejected case. There is no statement in the Civil Application to the effect that the injunction as prayed for herein had even been prayed for either in the Trial Court or in the Appellate Court. Hence no case is made out for grant of such injunction for the first time in the High Court, almost 12 years after filing of the suit. c.a.1866.10 2 3 No prima facie case is made out for grant of such injunction. The Respondents, who have succeeded in two Courts, cannot be restrained from enjoying the suit property or from dealing with the suit property. 4 Needless to say that any alienation by the Respondents would obviously be subject to the final outcome of the dispute between the parties which will be decided at the time of final hearing of the Second Appeal. 5 It is also not possible to lose site of the fact that the prayer of the Plaintiff is for partition and separate possession and even if they succeed, the contesting Respondents will still have share and right in the property. 6 For all the aforesaid reasons, no case is made out for grant of injunction. The Civil Application is rejected. G.S.GODBOLE,J.