1 ao463-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 463 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 606 OF 2010 Smt. Reba Debnarayan Ghosh .. Appellant V/s. Tulsibai Shakar Vaijal & Ors. .. Respondents .... Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b. Mr. Sachin V. Dhakephalkar for the appellant. Mr. Abhay Patki for respondent No.1. Mr. A. Dinyar Madon, senior counsel i/b. Mr. S. A. Sawant for respondent No.2. Ms. Mamata Sud with Mr. S. T. Purohit for respondent No.4. Mr. Samir S. Suryavanshi for respondent No.5. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 3, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Appellant is the original plaintiff in a suit for injunction filed in July 2009. A Notice of Motion for temporary injunction for protecting possession of the appellant was taken out. During the pendency of the said Notice of Motion, there was no ad-interim 2 ao463-10 relief granted. By the impugned order dated 21st January, 2010, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the Notice of Motion. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order. He pointed out that as regards one of the property bearing survey No.256, Hissa No.3, there is a prima facie finding recorded that the appellant-plaintiff was in possession. He submitted that even after having recorded the said finding, relief of injunction has been denied. The learned trial Judge ought to have protected the appellant. He pointed out that there are voluminous documents placed on record such as electricity bills etc., and none of the documents have been considered by the learned trial Judge. He pointed out that without considering the documentary evidence of possession which was placed on record by the appellant-plaintiff, the learned trial Judge has recorded the findings against the appellant. He pointed out that after the impugned order was passed, the Appeal preferred by the appellant which were dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was now been restored. He, therefore, submitted that the Appeal requires final hearing and interim relief of injunction 3 ao463-10 pending the Appeal will have to be granted. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The substantive prayer in the suit filed by the appellant is very peculiar. It seeks injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing physical possession of the appellant and from in any manner remaining or squatting upon the suit property. Even, assuming that the finding regarding possession as regards property bearing Hissa No.3, Survey No.256 has been recorded in the impugned order in favour of the appellant, the learned Judge has also recorded the findings that the appellant could not prima facie establish the case that her husband had purchased the suit property. 4. In that context of the peculiar prayer made in the suit, the learned trial Judge observed that as regards land bearing Hissa No.3, survey No.249, there is a registered Conveyance Deed executed in favour of fourth respondent in respect area of 3215 square meters. The learned Judge also dealt with the submissions made by the appellant as regards land bearing Hissa No.1, Survey No.249 in respect of which again there is a sale deed dated 4 ao463-10 17th August, 1994 in favour of the fourth defendant. There is also a finding recorded that out of the total area of 4600 square meters of Hissa No.3 of Survey No.256, the fourth defendant purchased an area of 2565 square meters by a registered conveyance dated 5th December, 1994. However, the plaintiff-appellant is claiming to be in possession of area of 7296.75 square meters. The learned Judge has dealt with the case made out by the appellant in respect of each property and has declined to grant discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction. 5. As pointed out earlier, from July 2009, there is no ad-interim relief operating in favour of the appellant. Taking overall view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the discretionary and equitable order. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order as well as by this Court are tentative. The trial Court shall decide the suit without being influenced by the said observations. Hearing of the suit is expedited. 5 ao463-10 6. Civil Application No.606 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE