: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.764 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.956 OF 2009 Shilpa Chandrashekhar Tawsalkar .. Appellant V/s. Prime Realtors & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.S. Dani for the Appellant. Mr. R.A. Thorat for Respondent No.1. Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare i/b. Mr. A.B. Mishra for Respondent No.2. Mr. Amol K. Tembe for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Appeal from Order arises from the order dated 8th July, 2009 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai by which a Notice of Motion No.239 of 2009 in S.C. Suit No.463 of 2009 filed by the appellant- plaintiff has been dismissed. The appellant- plaintiff contends that the City Civil Court has erred in not granting interim relief to her. The City Civil Court has observed that the appellant- plaintiff has not been able to establish that she was in possession of the suit land when the Suit : 2 : was filed. The appellant-plaintiff was also not able to establish that she was paying rent/ compensation from 1967 onwards that is the date of the Lease Deed in favour of her land. 2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the defendant No.2 does not have a better title than the appellant-plaintiff and, therefore, an injunction ought to have been granted in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. 3. This submission is unsustainable. When a plaintiff files a Suit in Court, it is for the plaintiff to establish his or her right to relief before the Court. The defect in the pleadings or the right of the defendants cannot ipso facto give a right to the plaintiff to certain reliefs from the Court. Therefore, in the present case although the defendant No.2 may not have a better title than the plaintiff, unless she establishes her own right, prima facie, she is not entitled to interim relief. : 3 : 4. In any event, the Suit has been filed for an injunction without there being any further reliefs sought. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594, the trial Court has not committed an error by refusing the interim relief to the appellant- plaintiff. 5. The Appeal from Order is dismissed. 6. In view of the above, Civil Application No.956 of 2009 pending in the Appeal from Order does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous. .......