1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3296/2010 ( Smt. Shabana Kausar w/o Mohd. Sabir -: VERSUS :- Ashok S. Khokale and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19 th NOVEMBER 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Patil for petitioner- defendant and Adv. Shri Naidu for respondent – plaintiff. The Appellate Court in M.C.A. No.82/2009 reversed the temporary injunction granted to petitioner – defendant after noticing that provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 (b) and (c) are not attracted and case does not fall under Order XXXIX Rule 1 (a) of the Civil Procedure Code. The said finding is questioned by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1997 S.C.C. 2467 (N. Umapathy V/s. B.V. Muniyappa). In the alternative it is urged that grant of such interim relief must be presumed to be under section 151 of the C.P.C. Adv. Shri Naidu contends that ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court, supra, is not relevant and there is no 2 jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The application as filed is under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. Perusal of application at Exh.37, moved by petitioner – defendant no.2, shows that it was under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The contention that it was under section 151 of the C.P.C. was not raised even before the Appellate Court. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, supra, shows that respondent therein found entitled to ad-interim injunction to protect his lawful possession is in fact plaintiff in civil suit. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. With liberty to petitioner to take steps as are open to him in law, present writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.