1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 728 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1634 OF 2004 IN S.C.SUIT NO. 1913 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 851 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 728 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1634 OF 2004 IN S.C.SUIT NO. 1913 OF 2004 Mr.Gajanan Sadashiv Bavkar ....Appellant Versus Mr.Mohd. Illias Ansari .....Respondent Shri.R.P.Ojha, adv.for appellant. None for respondent. Coram : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 28 th July, 2008. P.C. : 2 1. This appeal arises out of interim order dated 14th March, 2008 passed by the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court at Bombay, rejecting the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant for various interim reliefs including for an interim injunction restraining the respondent (original defendant) from parting with possession of the suit property. 2. The appellant was dispossessed from premises admeasuring 7 x 7 ft which is part of a larger premises admeasuring 20 sq.mts. Admittedly the dispossession took place on 3rd April, 1993. The present suit was filed by the appellant in the year 2004. The appellant was not granted any ad- interim order in respect of the suit property. Finally, the Notice of Motion came to be disposed off without any order in his favour. 3. Mr.Ojha, submits that the appellant should be atleast granted an interim injunction to restrain the respondent from parting with possession of the suit property. He submits that if the respondent creates any third party rights over the suit property or parts with possession thereof, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 4. I have perused the entire proceedings and the impugned order. It is 3 seen that the appellant had filed another suit earlier under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act for possession of the property. Even in that proceedings, there was no interim relief granted to the appellant. The suit came to be finally disposed off since it was hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. It is to be noted that since the date of alleged dispossession in the year 1993, there has not been any change of hands as regards the suit premises. In the circumstances, prima-facie there can be no apprehension as regards the transfer of the premises. 5. Mr.Ojha, next submits that the trial court had failed to take into consideration two documents, i.e. letter dated 7th April, 1999 addressed by the respondent through his advocate to the Manager, BSES Ltd and affidavit dated 23rd September, 1994 made by him. In both these documents, the respondent claims to have purchased the suit premises from one , Sayyed Faruq Hussain, whereas in the affidavit-in-reply filed to the Notice of Motion, the respondent claims to be a tenant in respect of the premises since 26th June, 1995 of one Hemandranath Harishchandra Patil. The change of the stand made by the respondent is as regards the title claimed by him to the suit premises. The trial court will consider the same at the appropriate time, that is at the time of trial of the suit. No 4 apprehension can be gathered from the same, that the respondent would transfer the premises to any third person. 6. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to disturb the order of the trial court. Hence the appeal from order is dismissed in limine. 7. In view of the disposal of the appeal, Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]