- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 1276 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1568 OF 2008 Smt. Leelaben Babubhai Pradhan ... Appellant Vs. Mun. Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. G. S. Godbole with J. G. Damani, for appellant. Mr. J. J. Xavier with Mrs. K. K. Soraan, for respondent No.1. Mrs. A. A. Mane, AGP for respondent No. 3 Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Sr. counsel i/b Mr. A. R. Shaikh & S.D. Mishra, for the respondent No. 6. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 17, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. By the impugned order, Notice of Motion No. 362 of 2007 filed by the petitioner, challenging an interim relief came to be rejected. The appellant, original plaintiff has filed L.C. Suit No. 428 of 2007 simplicitor for injunction against the respondents. The claim of the appellant is based on panchanama dated 14-5-1959, executed in - 2 - favour of Vesta Babu Dhondi, the father of appellant and respondent No.2, and the order of this Court passed on 18th December 1997 in Appeal From Order No. 1411 of 1997. The panchanama shows that appellant’s father was in possession of part of the suit premises. The order passed by the High Court in A.O. No.1411 of 1997 disclose that respondent No.1 Bombay Municipal Corporation made a statement that appellant’s father will not be dispossessed without following due process of law. 2. The respondent No.2 is a brother of the appellant, who is occupying the premises, in possession of the appellant’s father. His name is included in Annexure-II. 3. There is no dispute that respondent No.1 is owner of the suit premises. The panchanama mentioned above will not confer any title either in predecessor in title of appellant or appellant. The question of following due process of law by the respondent No. 1 does not arise, as appellant is residing at Borivli and not in the suit premises. As stated earlier, respondent No.2 seems to be occupant of the suit premises and his name is included in Annexure-II. At the interim stage, the appellant is obliged to prove the prima-facie case and prima-facie possession. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant failed to prove the same. The trial Court also arrived at similar conclusion. I do not find any error in the said finding. As the appeal is devoid of substance, the same is dismissed. - 3 - 4. In view of dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application No. 1568 of 208 does not survive for consideration, the same therefore, is disposed of. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]