1 ao20 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.20 OF 2011 Ambika Murgan Nadar ...Appellant vs. Anusha Chandru Pardasany ...Respondent Mr.S.P.Srivastava for the appellant Mr.V.R.Tripathi i/b Mr.V.R.Tripathi & Associates for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 19,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. By the impugned order, notice of motion taken out by the appellant for grant of temporary injunction has been dismissed. The suit is filed simplicitor for injunction. The appellant is relying upon the agreement for sale dated 27th July 2006 as a document of title. Prima facie finding of the trial Court is that there is no clause in the agreement which records that under the agreement, the appellant was placed in possession of the suit premises. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there were other documents on record showing possession of the appellant- plaintiff. 2 The appellant is relying upon the agreement for sale which admittedly does not contain a recital that the appellant was placed in possession. In the circumstances, the trial Court was justified in declining to grant temporary injunction which is a discretionary relief. 3 Hence, no case is made out for interference. Appeal 2 ao20 is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open. 5 Civil application no.22 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE