: 1 : 4370-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4370 OF 2011 Shashikant Rajgonda Patil .. Petitioner v/s. Shri Rajaram Mahadeo Ghatge & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Amit B. Borkar for the petitioner Mr. P.D. Dalvi for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 5th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel on both sides. The petitioner herein filed counter­claim to the suit filed by respondent no.1. In the said counter claim, the petitioner has come out with the case that he is in possession of the suit property and that respondent no.1 is trying to interfere with the possession. The petitioner took out the application at Exh.5 so as to seek interim relief. The said interim application was decided by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur by order dated 16th December, 2010 : 2 : 4370-11-wp=.sxw below Exh.150 and injunction was granted to restrain respondent no.1 from disturbing the possession of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 16th December, 2010, the respondent no.1 filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2011. That appeal was heard on merits and learned District Judge­II, Kolhapur by his order dated 2nd April, 2011 allowed the appeal and order dated 16th December, 2010 below Exh. 150 in Counter Claim in Regular Civil Suit No.655 of 1989 was decided and application at Exh.150 was rejected. Being aggrieved by this order dated 2nd April, 2011, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. I have perused the plaint and other papers. A reading of the same goes to indicate that the plaint lacks necessary averments to show that on a given date, the respondent no.1 attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. In my view, in the absence of specific averments, the case of the petitioner that an injunction is required to be granted cannot be accepted. In order to consider the prayer for injunction, it was necessary for the petitioner to state fully as on which day, the respondent no.1 attempted to disposes the petitioner. This is on the footing that the petitioner is in possession. : 3 : 4370-11-wp=.sxw 3. In my view, as the bare requirements of the pleadings are not fulfilled, the petitioner herein is not entitled to any relief. It is clarified that as of today, this Court has not gone into the question whether the petitioner’s case that he is in possession of the suit is correct. All questions left open. There is no need to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court. Petition is dismissed accordingly. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)