hcs 1 w1103.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1103 OF 2011 Sunil Shankar Bandal & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. Shahaji Raghunath Mohankar & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for the petitioners. Mr.S.N.Chandrachood for the respondents. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th February, 2011. PC: 1. By way of present petition the petitioners challenge the order dated 7th January, 2011 by which the application filed by the petitioners-defendants under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 7 Rule 10 came to be rejected. 2. Shri Sadavarte, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that perusal of the prayer clause (a) of the plaint would reveal that the plaintiff in effect is seeking declaration that he is owner of the land and, therefore, the suit was totally undervalued. He, therefore, submits that the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the application. 3. It is a settled position of law that a particular sentence in the plaint cannot be read in piece-meal and taking into consideration the total averment in the hcs 2 w1103.11.sxw plaint the case of the plaintiff has to be determined. Perusal of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the plaint would reveal that the plaintiff has specifically averred as to how he came in possession of the property. It is also specifically mentioned in the plaint that the defendants have unauthorisedly raised construction in front side by constructing three shops. It is averred that due to this act of the defendants the way of the plaintiff to their property was closed. It is also averred that the plaintiff was constructing boundary wall in his property which was unlawfully and forcibly objected by the defendants. On the said cause of action the suit is filed for declaration and injunction as prayed for. 4. In that view of the matter no error can be found with the order of the trial Court. Hence the petition is rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)