1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.738 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.241 OF 2009 Shri Vishwas Gulabrao Jadhav ..... Applicant vs. Shri Vishwas Bapusaheb Jadhav ..... Respondents & Ors. Mr.Bhargude i/by Mr.S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant. Mr.V.S. Talkute, Advocate for respondent no.2-A. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 25th November, 2009. PC : 1. This Civil Application is taken out by the applicant in the Second Appeal for stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 1st April, 2009. By prayer clause [AA], the appellant seeks an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from disturbing his possession in respect of suit property being gat nos. 442, 465, 231 and 227 situate at village Karandi, Taluka & District Satara. The application is opposed by respondents. By the impugned judgment and order, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the cross-objections filed by respondent no.1 was allowed, the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit dismissed with costs. 2 2. The record of proceedings shows that when the appellant filed the suit herein, he had presented an application for interim reliefs in the same terms as per clause [AA] herein. When he moved the Court for ad-interim reliefs thereon, by the order dated 8th October 1998 only notice was directed to be issued against respondents, the original defendants. Thereafter for four years, the application remained pending without hearing. On 8th July 2002, when the application was to be taken up for hearing, the appellant himself endorsed on the application that it be heard along with the suit. This would mean that there was no interim injunction operating during the pendency of the suit. The suit was then partly allowed granting injunction to restrain the respondents from disturbing possession of the appellant of the suit property. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.47 of 2005 to the District Court, Satara. The original defendants no.1 also filed cross-objections to the appeal. By the impugned judgment and order, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, the cross-objections filed by original defendant no.1 allowed, the decree passed by the trial Court set aside and the suit dismissed. The appeal court gave a finding that the appellant had failed to establish that he is in possession of the suit premises. It is thus seen that during the entire period of the pendency of the proceedings, there had been no injunction running in favour of the appellant for protection of his alleged possession of the suit property. It is also seen that the appeal court has given a finding 3 that the appellant is not in possession of the suit property. In these circumstances, there is no question of grant of interim relief to the appellant to protect his possession of the suit property. Hence, the Civil Application is dismissed. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J.)