:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.539 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.334 OF 2008 Shri. Shankar Pandurang Pote. ..Applicant. Vs. Sou. Laxmibai Dagadu Jagdale and ors...Respondents. Mr. S.A. Sawant for the Applicant. Mr. R.M. Pethe for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 23rd September, 2008 PC : 1. This matter is moved today for grant of relief in terms of prayer clause (c) which pertains to relief of injunction against the respondents from disturbing the possession of the applicant-original plaintiff. I have rejected that relief vide my order dated 25.4.2008. The relevant para of the order against this grievance is made is in the following terms. "As regards the relief pertaining to disturbing peaceful possession, admittedly, no such relief was claimed pending the suit". 2. It is now contended that, in fact, such an application was made and ad-interim injunction was granted on 28.7.1986 which was confirmed in Misc.Civil Appeal No.569 of 1986 by judgment delivered on 21.10.1988. It is contended that thereafter, the trial :2: court decreed the suit for specific performance. In the operative part of the decree, the defendants were also restrained from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit property either through themselves or through their relatives, agents, etc. It is also contended that during the pendency of the appeal this injunction was never stayed and therefore, by virtue of continuous injunction which runs from 28.7.1986, the plaintiff has been in actual possession under the order of the trial court. 3. Though this appears to be the correct position, I find that the appellate court which is the last court of facts finding court has framed specific issue and given its finding that the plaintiff was not put in possession of the suit land under the agreement in respect of which specific performance was sought. The Appellate Court has also opined that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land on the date of the suit. The reasoning given by the Appellate Court is that under the document in respect of which the said specific performance was sought, it is clearly mentioned that the possession is to be given later, at the time of registration of the sale deed. This document is registered document (Exh.96). The Appellate Court has disbelieved the possession receipt (Exh.97) on the footing that the same is against the contents of the registered document. :3: 4. At this stage, though the contention of the applicant as regards grant of injunction pending the suit appears to be correct, in my view, that does not change the position in view of the finding given by the Appellate Court. The applicant is therefore, not entitled for relief claimed in prayer clause (c). 5. At this stage, the Advocate for the applicant states that the original defendants are making attempt to construct upon the suit property. That relief is not claimed in the present civil application and therefore, I am not making any observations in this regard. Hence, no further order. However, if the applicant chooses to make any such civil application seeking any further relief, that application will be considered on its own merits. Application is disposed off. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)