1 ao 586-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 586 OF 2010 Smt.Rashidabi Memmoodali Sayed & Ors. ...Appellants vs. Dr.(Smt.) Shakeela Yasinali Sayed ...Respondent Mr.V.Z. Kankaria for the Appellants. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : JANUARY 10, 2011 P.C :- 1 By way of present appeal, the appellant challenges the Order dated 16th February, 2010 by which the application filed by the present appellants for injunction has been rejected and the order dated 1st April, 2010 vide which an application for review has been rejected. 2 Heard Shri Kankaria, learned Counsel for the appellants. Shri Kankaria submits that the order of injunction has been rejected without taking into 2 ao 586-2010 consideration the record. 3 I have perused both the order dated 16th February, 2010 vide which the application has been rejected and the order dated 1st April, 2010 vide which review application has been rejected. The learned Judge while rejecting the application has found that initially an order of injunction was, in fact, granted in favour of the present appellants for a limited period vide order dated 5th July, 2003. However, the same came to be continued from time to time till 15th October, 2007, vide which the order was vacated. It has been found that no subsequent change has been noticed so as to reconsider the prayer for injunction. It can, thus, clearly be seen that from 15th October 2007, there was no order of injunction operating in favour of the appellants. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Appellate Court is neither perverse nor impossible, to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the 3 ao 586-2010 Constitution of India. No case is made out under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC. 3 Appeal is, therefore, rejected. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application. Same is also disposed of. (B.R. GAVAI, J.)