1 ao742.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appeal from Order No. 742 of 2010 WITH Civil Application No. 931 of 2010 IN Appeal from Order No. 742 of 2010 Konkan Wires Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant v/s. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & anr. ... Respondents Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel i/b. Ajay S. Patil for the appellant. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- JANUARY 11, 2011. P.C. By way of present Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the order dated 25th March, 2010 by which the Application filed by the present Appellant for temporary injunction came to be rejected. 2. The plaintiff/appellant has filed the suit claiming that he is entitled for allotment of adjoining plot in the industrial area developed by the 2 ao742.10.sxw Respondent on account of expansion of business. 3. In the said suit, the Application came to be filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The prayer made in the Application was that during the pendency of the suit, the adjoining plot should not be allotted to any one. The same is rejected. Hence, the present Appeal. 4. Shri Dhakephalkar, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Learned trial Court has erroneously considered the circular issued by the Respondent - MIDC. It is stated that the said circular provides that the existing unit is entitled for allotment of property for expansion of business. It is further submitted that the interpretation given by the Learned trial Court that the expansion has to be for the same business only, is not in consonance with the circular and in any case that can only be considered at the stage of trial of the matter. 5. The scope in the Appellate jurisdiction under Order 43 Rule (1) (2) of CPC is very limited. Unless it is found that view taken by the trial Court is either perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. The Learned trial Court has given cogent and sound 3 ao742.10.sxw reasons while rejecting the Application. It has been found that the plot which is sought to be allotted by the present Appellant has been reserved for the amenities and for project affected persons and as such it cannot be allotted to the Appellant. It has further been found that the Board of Respondent has also resolved not to allot the said plot to the Appellant. 6. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Learned trial Court is either perverse or impossible to warrant interference. Hence, rejected. 7. In view of disposal of the Appeal, nothing survives for consideration in the Civil Application No. 931/2010. The same is also disposed of accordingly. (B.R. GAVAI, J)