1 (CAS 606 of 2011) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 606 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.152 OF 2009 Smt.Ranjana Shivaji Jagdale ...Applicant Vs. Mahadeo Maruti Magar & Anr. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Makarand P.Panchakshari i/b. Mr.Sagar Kasar for Applicant Mr.Vaibhav Gaikwad i/b. Mr.A.M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the Respondents. 2. It is submitted that this Court has by order dated 30th July, 2009 was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo and, thereafter, the order of status quo has been continued from time to time. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Applicants that in spite of the order of status quo, the Respondents are interfering with the possession of the Applicants/Original Plaintiffs. It is, therefore, submitted that an order of injunction, therefore, may be passed, restraining the Respondents-Original Defendants from disturbing the possession of the Applicant. 2 (CAS 606 of 2011) 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal which was filed by him and dismissed the suit of the Applicant/Plaintiff. He submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the possession of the suit property was not handed over to the Applicant-Original Plaintiff. He submitted that, therefore, there is no finding in favour of the Plaintiff that she is in possession of the suit land. He submitted that , therefore, this civil application is liable to be dismissed. 4. In my view, there is some substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. I have perused the order of the Lower Appellate Court. The Applicant could not establish that he was in possession of the suit premises though he purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed. 5. That being the position, the Plaintiff-Applicant herein would not be entitled to seek an order of injunction against the Defendants-Respondents herein. Civil Application, therefore, is dismissed. Hearing of the appeal, however, is expedited. (V.M. KANADE J.)