1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 272 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 637 OF 2009 Akhileshkumar Prabhunarayan Singh & anr. ... Appellants v/s The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.S.Datar for the appellants. Mr.V.A.Gangal with Ashok Gade and Vindu Pandey for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr.V.K.Maurya i/by V.N.Associates for the Resp. No.6. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1ST DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The appellant has approached this Court against the order dated 11.2.2009 by which the interim order passed below Exh.5 was vacated. The Trial Court has held that the appellants had not established a prima facie case in order to grant them any relief. The Trial Court has observed that the plaintiffs/appellants had no documents on record indicating that their names were included in the revenue records. The 2 Trial Court has also observed that the amount paid by the plaintiffs was only Rs.2 lacs and not Rs.45 lacs as claimed by them. Apart from this, the Trial Court has observed that the plaintiffs had not established that they were in possession of the suit property and, therefore, has refused interim relief to them. 2. In my view, there is no case made out for interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has considered the material on record and has observed that the plaintiffs had not proved even prima facie that they were entitled to the reliefs in view of the agreement between them and the erstwhile owners. In any event, the property has now been sold to respondent No.6 who claimed to be in possession of the property. 3. Appeal from order stands rejected along with the civil application. 4. The order of status-quo granted earlier to continue for a period of four weeks from today. ..... 3