1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7936 OF 2009 Mukesh Bhimraj Kothari ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.P.Ojha a/w Mr.H.P.Pandey for the petitioner Mr.A.I.Patel,A.G.P for State CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A notice of motion was taken out by the petitioner in disposed of suit invoking Rule 2 (A) of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. By the impugned order, the said notice of motion has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed a contempt petition in this court alleging breach of undertaking on the part of the respondents which has been recorded in Judgment and Order dated 26th September 2006. The said contempt petition has been withdrawn. 2 After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no fault in the impunged order in as much as Rule 2(A) of Order XXXIX of the said Code could not have been invoked as there is no order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. The 2 contention of the petitioner is that certain undertakings have not been complied with and the said undertakings have been breached. 3 As stated earlier, remedy of invoking rule 2(A) of Order XXXIX of the said Code is totally misconceived. If the petitioner has any grievance about the survey and measurements made by the Survey Officer, the petitioner has remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 and the petitioner can always invoke the appropriate remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE