1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4766 OF 2009 Kamlakar Dhanaji Kamble. ... Petitioner. V/s. Prakash Kamble & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Balasaheb Deshmukh for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 15TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. 2. The impugned order is passed by the learned District Judge on an Appeal challenging of an order of Trial Court refusing interim injunction. 3. The prima-facie concurrent conclusion is that the Petitioner - Plaintiff has failed to show anything which would indicate the property is jointly owned. He has also failed to 2 show his joint possession and enjoyment of the same. I do not see as to how the reasoning at this interlocutory stage and more particularly at paragraphs 12 to 14 of the order of the Lower Appellate Court could be said to be vitiated by an error apparent or perverse so as to call for interference, in this Court’s equitable and ex-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, accordingly, stands dismissed. The construction at site shall abide by the final order in the suit. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the controversy and the Trial Court to dispose off the Suit uninfluenced by any observation made by it so also by the Lower Appellate Court. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.