1 SA 41.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar) ,Advocate for the appellant. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/03/2011 PER COURT : 1. This is Appeal filed by the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for injunction against defendant nos. 1 to 7. Defendant no. 8 was subsequently impleaded, but no relief was claimed against the defendant no. 8. But, the trial Court decreed the Suit of the plaintiff and restrained all the defendants from obstructing the possession of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 8 preferred Appeal. The District Court allowed the Appeal on the ground that the plaintiff did not claim any relief against defendant no. 8 and as such the Court could not have clamped injunction against the defendant no. 8. The plaintiff has assailed the said 2 SA 41.2011 Judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr. M.M.Patil - Beedkar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the plaint was not amended claiming relief against the defendant no. 8, still the Court could have exercised its power under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and could have molded the relief. The plaintiff could not have been non suited on such technical ground. According to the learned counsel, it was the subsequent event and just because no amendment was carried out in the prayer clause, that would not disentitle the Court from granting the said relief. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant, I have gone through the Judgments. 4. It is not disputed that after the defendant no. 8 was impleaded, the plaint was not amended seeking relief against defendant no. 8. In absence of any relief against defendant no. 8, the Court could not have granted the relief sou motu. The relief of injunction is the relief in persona, the question of molding the relief would arise if the Court can grant lesser relief. At such time, the Court would exercise its power under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to mold the 3 SA 41.2011 relief. But, when no relief has been claimed, no question arises of invoking power under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that light of the matter, no error is committed by the District Court in allowing the Appeal filed by respondent no. 8. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 5. At this stage, Mr. Patil – Beedkar, the learned counsel submits that liberty may be granted to the appellant to institute appropriate proceedings against defendant no. 8. This Court can not grant such liberty. However, if the plaintiff is entitled under law to initiate any such proceedings, then in such circumstances, there would not be any impediment. 6. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is dismissed. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/SA 41.2011