1 caf3176 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3176 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.162 OF 2008 The Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Limited ...Applicant vs. Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents Ms V.V.Thorat for the applicant Mr.A.R.Patil, A.G.P for the respondent nos.2 and 3 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 7, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the appellant in the First Appeal. Prayers (a) and (b) of this application read thus : a) By order of this Hon ble Court the Respondent nos.2 & 3 be directed to forthwith allow the Applicants their students, Parishioners and tenants, ingress and egress, (entry & exist) on the said Internal Road leading from Clare Road to the South West of the Suit property between 8.00 a.m to 10.00 p.m pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal. b) By an order of this Hon ble Court, 2 caf3176 the Opponent no.3 its Officers, servants, agents and/or any person/s claiming through or under it be restrained from obstructing or interfering with Applicant and its tenant s personnel, representatives, goods and vehicles from having free and full egress and ingress to their property through Internal Suit Road or through the gate erected by the Opponent no.3 in any manner whatsoever. 2 The applicant filed a suit in the year 1997 against the respondents (Union of India, State of Maharashtra and Superintendent of Byculla District Prison) claiming right of way. By the impugned Judgment and decree, the suit has been dismissed. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of a registered document, right of access exists in favour of the applicant for last more than 100 years. The learned counsel pointed out that the notice of motion for injunction was taken out during the pendency of the suit but the same was disposed of without granting any interim injunction not on merits but on the ground that the suit deserved to be heard expeditiously. It is submitted that the applicant is running a school and though there is another access 3 caf3176 available, the same is not convenient and the same is not safe for school children. Therefore, the present application for injunction has been filed. 4 The suit was filed in the year 1997. the notice of motion for injunction taken out in the suit was disposed of by the Trial Court in the year 2001 by observing that the main relief was of demolition of a wall which was constructed in the year 1997. It is true that the notice of motion was not dismissed on merits but with observation that the suit deserves to be disposed of expeditiously. From the year 1997, till today there is no interim relief operating in favour of the applicant. Even according to the applicant, there is another access available which is being used during the pendency of the suit. The said access is admittedly used till today. Hence, no case is made out for grant of any interim relief. Application is rejected. JUDGE