( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ SECOND APPEAL NO.67 OF 2009 SECOND APPEAL NO.67 OF 2009 SECOND APPEAL NO.67 OF 2009 Prakash Babulal Mutha ..Appellant V/s. Pune Municipal Corporation ..Respondents ...... Mr. G.S. Godbole with Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for the appellant Mr. S.M.Gorwadkar for the respondents ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 24th April, 2009 DATED : 24th April, 2009 DATED : 24th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2003 against the respondents in the Court of Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, (P.M.C.) Pune to seek an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession. The said suit was filed on the basis of apprehension felt by the appellant in regard to certain instances which had taken place prior to the filing of the suit. The learned trial Judge on merits as regards the apprehension, declined to accept the case of the appellant and dismissed the suit, against which appeal came to be filed before the District Court, Pune being Regular Civil Appeal No.781 of 2006. The appellant lost at the hands of the learned District Judge, 10th Pune through the judgment and decree dated 18th September, 2008 in as much as the appeal also came to ( 2 ) be dismissed. Hence, the Second Appeal. 2. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Godbole and learned advocate Mr.Gorwadkar appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondents respectively. I wish to observe that the findings given by the learned trial Judge will have to be restricted to the material which was placed before the learned trial Judge as well as learned Appellate Court. Considering the fact that the suit was for injunction simplicitor restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellant from the suit premises, that material cannot be used by the respondents in other Civil Suit if appellant files a new suit based on new facts. Needless to mention, in future if the appellant institutes the suit for a relief of similar nature that suit will have to be considered by the appropriate Court keeping in view the material which will be placed before it for the purposes of deciding the case of the appellant. The observations made by two Courts in this matter, cannot be used against the appellant. 3. In my view, both the Courts have taken a proper view with reference to the factual aspects of the matter and no substantial question is raised. Hence, the following order. ( 3 ) ORDER ORDER ORDER . If appellant in future apprehends any action on the part of the respondents, appellant is free to adopt appropriate proceedings to protect his right in regard to the suit property. The said suit shall be considered on merits of that matter and observations in this suit will not be used against the appellant. . Needless to mention that whatever proceedings which would be filed by the appellant will be considered by the Court on its own merits and parties are free to put up their contentions which will be considered by the said Court. . Civil Application No.387 of 2009 stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)