: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.329 OF 2009 Polyplast Chemical Plant (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant V/s. Ms.Nirmal Kuldeep Mundhe & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar i/b Shri Anilkumar Joshi for Applicant Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Pratap Patil for Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JANUARY 19, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appellant has moved this Court contending that the order passed on 21.5.2008 restraining them from constructing over survey No.495 and 496 at at Biloshi, Wada, District Thane is illegal. According to the appellants, the sale of the land by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in favour of Respondent No.2 who subsequently sold the land to Respondent No.1 has taken place in breach of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948. It is submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4 could not have sold the properties to respondent No.2 who in turn have sold it to Respondent No.1. It is further submitted that from the plaint it is seen that the plaintiffs were contending that they were entitled to 2/3rd of the property in the aforesaid survey numbers and not the entire property. The learned advocate : 2 : appearing for the appellant therefore submits the order restraining them from constructing on the aforesaid survey numbers ought to have been restricted to 2/3rd of the land. 2. In my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error concluding that the defendants should be restrained from constructing over survey numbers 495 and 496. There was material on record to indicate that the plaintiff had an undivided share in the suit property alongwith the original plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. 3. The appellate Court has also observed that during the pendency of the trial, there was an order of status quo passed which continued upto 9.5.2008. In these circumstances, the Court has directed the appellant to maintain status quo and restrained it from constructing over the aforesaid lands. Further, the submission of the appellant with respect to the illegality of the sale or otherwise can be considered in appropriate proceedings. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the trial Court. 4. Hence, the appeal from order is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal from Order, Civil Application No.399 of 2009 does not survive and the same is dismissed accordingly.