bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3571 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 3571 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 3571 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 2031 OF 1998 NO. 2031 OF 1998 NO. 2031 OF 1998 Mrs.Pushpa Gajanan Chandi & ors. ... Plaintiffs v/s Port Officers & ors. . ... Defendants Mr.Omprakash Pandey i/by Pandey & Co. for the plaintiffs. Mr.S.I.Shah with Ms.N.Valani for defendant Nos.1 and 2. Mr.S.Bangar i/by A.V.Jain for defendant Nos.3 to 6. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 18TH MARCH, 2009 18TH MARCH, 2009 18TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Pandey appearing for the plaintiffs and learned advocates for the defendants. 2. Perused the Notice of motion and the affidavit in support, Reply and Rejoinder. I have also perused the Annexures thereto. 3. The suit is filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they are joint owners and/or co-owners of the suit property, by Adverse Possession. 2 4. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit in the City Civil Court being Suit No.1000 of 1996. The plaintiffs took out the Notice of Motion No.902 of 1996 for an interim relief therein. That was dismissed on 29.9.1997. An appeal was preferred before this Court being Appeal from Order No.1147 of 1997. The same was dismissed on 20.10.1997. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Appeal from order held that the land regarding which the declaration is claimed does not belong to the plaintiffs, prima facie. Prima facie, the plaintiffs have not been able to show that they have any right in the land. Observing thus, the Appeal from Order was dismissed. 5. Thereafter, the City Civil Court suit was withdrawn and this suit was filed. 6. In this suit also, an application for interim injunction was made which came to be dismissed on 3.8.2000. While dismissing the notice of motion, reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge. 7. Now, after a lapse of more than 8 years, identical interim injunction has been claimed. No changed circumstances are pointed out, save and except, relying 3 upon a complaint made by the plaintiffs on 13.2.2008. On the basis of the averments in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the affidavit in support, the same interim injunction is claimed. 8. Considering that the Court has observed that the plaintiffs’ claim for adverse possession is prima facie doubtful and even balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiffs, then, in my view, they are not entitled to any interim injunction. 9. More so, when the statements made in the affidavit in support dated 3.4.2008, in no way amount to changed circumstances. 10. Notice of motion is, therefore, dismissed. Costs Costs in the Cause. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) J.) J.)