1 ao635.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Appeal from Order No. 635 of 2011 WITH Civil Application No. 868 of 2011 IN AO No. 635/2011 Bhau Shankar Raut & ors. ....Appellants v/s. Smt. Mrudula Anil Kenkre & ors. ....Respondents Mr. P.R.Arjunwadkar for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Counsel i/b. P.D.Dalvi for respondents 1-5. CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. 04th October, 2011 PC: The appellants are taking exception to the order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan on 25th February, 2011 below exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 381/2010. The application tendered by the plaintiff seeking a restraining order against the defendant from creating third party interest as well from interfering with the peaceful possession over the suit land came to be turned down by the trial Court in view of order passed on 25th February, 2011. 2. The transaction in question is dated 29th January, 1972. The plaintiff in his plaint contends that the transaction is bad in law, void and does not bind the plaintiff. The respondent herein has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 29th January, 1972. On perusal of the certified copy it is found that the plaintiff himself is a signatory to the sale deed. In the plaint the plaintiff 2 ao635.11.sxw has contended that sale transaction in question came to his knowledge on 29th May, 2009. This fact stated in para 12 of the plaint appears to be prima-facie wrong as the plaintiff himself is signatory to the said document as a witness. The sale deed also refers to the permission granted by the sub-Divisional Officer, Thane bearing No.TMC/SR/3-72 in respect of the alienation of the property. Considering these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff does not deserve any protection. The trial Court has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and passed a reasoned order. Reasoning recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. There is no need to cause interference in the impugned interlocutory order passed by the trial Court. 3. Appeal from Order is devoid of substance, hence, stand dismissed. 4. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, civil application do not survive and disposed of accordingly., (R.M.BORDE, J)