ash 1 35ao-699.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 699 OF 2010 Shri Jaiprakash Rambali Chaurasia. .. Appellant. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri R.R. Tiwari for the Appellant. Shri V.S. Mhaispurkar, AGP for Respondent No.1. Shri Rakesh Pandey for Respondent No.2 -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 6TH MAY, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff. In a suit filed by the Appellant, a Notice of Motion for temporary injunction was taken out. By the impugned order dated 1st June, 2009, the Notice of Motion has been dismissed. The prayer in the Notice of motion was for restraining the Respondents from creating third party interests by booking the flats in the building on the suit property and for restraining the Registrar of Assurances from registering any of the agreements in respect of building known as ‘Symphony Tower’ situated on the suit property. A prayer is also made for appointment of Court Receiver. ash 2 35ao-699.10 2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. Perusal of the plaint shows that on the date of institution of the suit, the Appellant – Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. In fact, in Paragraph 21 of the plaint, it is asserted that the Appellant is entitled to appropriate decree and mandatory order against the 1st Defendant-1st Respondent for restoration of the possession. The averments made in the plaint clearly show that the Appellant – Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and there is a building already constructed on the suit property by the contesting Respondents. In absence of a prayer for possession in the suit, on the first principles, temporary injunction cannot be granted to the Appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant relied upon prayer (d) of the Plaint. Perusal of the prayer (d) of the plaint shows that it is a prayer for interim relief during the pendency of the suit directing the 1st and 2nd Respondents to restore residential accommodation of the Appellant. Interim relief can be granted only in the aid of final relief. There is no final relief prayed as regards the restoration of possession. 3. There is no reason to interfere with the discretionary and equitable order passed by the Trial Court. 4. Hence, I passed the following order:- (a) The Appeal is dismissed. ash 3 35ao-699.10 (b) This order will not prevent the Appellant from making an application to the Trial Court for amendment of the plaint. If application for amendment of the plaint is made, the same shall be considered by the Trial Court on it own merits. (c) The application for amendment of the plaint and the main suit shall be decided by the Trial Court without being influenced by the tentative observations made in the impugned order as well as in this order. (d) Civil Application No.889 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of . ( A.S. OKA, J )