1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2010 1. Shabbir Ahmed Ansari and others .. Appellants Versus 1. Vilas S/o Lotan Sonavne and others .. Respondents Shri Sayed Rahmat Ali, Advocate for Appellants. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : . The plaintiff had filed the suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the working, administration and management of the plaintiff No. 3 Trust. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court dismissed the suit. 2. Shri Sayyed, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Courts have not taken into consideration the documents on record in its correct perspective, but only in hyper technical manner have considered the matter. Though the names 2 of the defendants are appearing as the Trustee, the same is at the initial stage and subsequently they have been removed from the trusteeship. According to him Exhibit 95 is the copy of the proceeding sheet and same proves the said fact. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the judgment. No resolution is produced on record removing the defendants from being the trustees of the plaintiff No. 3 trust. More over Exhibit 95 is only a resolution which shows that defendants have done some activity and as such, the President i. e. plaintiff No. 1 is allowed to take action against them. But there is no record to show that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 pursuant thereof are removed. The suit is for simplicitor injunction. In such circumstances, no relief could have been granted in favour of the plaintiff. 3. In the result the second appeal being sans substantial question of law is dismissed with no order as to costs. [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Sept. 10