: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4267 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.4267 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.4267 OF 2007 Popat Kesu Kumbhar ...Petitioner. V/s. Malan Dinkar Kumbhar and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Uday Warunjikar , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.Vinay M. Bhate , adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.Bhatia,J J.H.Bhatia,J J.H.Bhatia,J. DATE : 12th November, 2008. DATE : 12th November, 2008. DATE : 12th November, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. In the order dated 25th September, 2008, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 had taken time to take instructions from his client in respect of controversy noted in the petition and the paragraph 1 of the aforesaid order. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 concedes that the mistake has been committed by the Appellate Court. However, according to him, the respondent no.2 could move the trial Court to amend the plaint and to clarify the position. 3. In view of this, it is clear that the respondent no.2 before this Court, who is plaintiff no.2 in Regular : 2 : Civil Suit No.139 of 2002, claimed possession over the Northern half share out of gat no.285 admeasuring 35 gunthas. That gat number was found to be 25 gunthas though in the plaint area is 35 gunthas. However, even though the plaintiff no.2 had claimed possession of only Northern half share of the said gat number, the appellate authority granted him relief in respect of whole of the gat number admeasuring 25 gunthas and this was clearly wrong. In view of this mistake committed by the Appellate Court in final order in the judgment dated 23rd January, 2007 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.42 of 2004, it is hereby clarified that the respondents shall not disturb possession of the plaintiff no.2 over the Northern half share of gat no.285 admeasuring 25 gunthas. 4. Similarly, the last paragraph of the impugned order, which reads as follows "They are further directed that they should not cause obstruction to possession of each other’s in respective land stripes till decision of the suit." is admittedly beyond the scope of the application for temporary injunction and, therefore, that paragraph of the impugned order stands set aside. 5. Writ Petition is hereby disposed off accordingly. : 3 : 6. This order shall not come in the way of any application, which the plaintiff may move before the trial Court for amendment of the plaint and which shall be entirely decided on its own merits. (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)