IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.135 of 2009. SECOND APPEAL NO.135 of 2009. SECOND APPEAL NO.135 of 2009. Kashinath Janardhan @ Janu Kadu & Others ..Appellants versus Smt.Pushpa Parshuram Patil ..Respondent Seema Sarnaik & Ameya Tamhane for the appellant Gauri Godse for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 6th April, 2009. DATED : 6th April, 2009. DATED : 6th April, 2009. P.C. 1. Leave to amend was granted to correct the name of the appellant . Oral Order was passed directing the advocate for the appellant to carry out amendment to show the correct the name of the appellant No.2. 2. Heard learned Counsels on both the sides. Learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division by his Judgment and decree dated 20.1.2008 granted injunction in favour of the appellants thereby restraining the respondent from dispossessing the appellant from Gut No.148 save and except by due process of law. The respondents herein challenged the said decree before the learned District -2- Judge-I, and the Appellate Judge by his decree dated 19.1.2009 allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction issued by learned trial Judge. 3. After having heard learned Counsels on both the sides, it is required to be mentioned that the learned Appellate Judge gave emphasis on the admission of the appellant that the appellant has no documentary evidence to show that the appellants are in possession of Gut No.148. The relevant discussion is found at para 7 of the impugned judgment by the learned Appellate Judge. 4. According to the Counsel for the appellant certain revenue proceedings were taken up between the parties and all those documents were before the Court. There is a reference to the Commissioner’s report which is at Exhibit 18 and the appellants were heavily relying upon the said Commissioner’s report to prove their possession. The said Commissioner was not examined and mere reference on the said report was sought to be relied upon. After having considered the point involved, I am inclined to observe that the view taken by the Appellate Judge is right because it was the duty of the appellant to prove and make out the case that -3- the appellants were in possession of the land in question and then only they can claim protection in the nature of injunction. It was necessary for the appellant to produce each and every material to show that they were in possession. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Appellate Court should have considered the proceeding before the Revenue Authority without any formal proof thereto cannot be accepted. In my view, the appellant have failed to make out the case that they were in possession and as such the Appellate Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion. No substantial question of law is involved. The appeal is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence the Order. ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ii. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, other objections if any stand dispensed with. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)