1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 755 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.373 OF 2009 ( Shamrao Tukaramji Chopade ..vs.. Prabhakar Govindrao Dandghe ) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. M.P. Kariya, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. A.G. Gharote, Advocate for the respondent. C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 27th APRIL, 2010. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent. 2. This application has been moved by the plaintiff/appellant for grant of injunction restraining the defendant from making construction on the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff/appellant that he had inducted the defendant/respondent as licensee in the suit premises. The defendant/respondent did not vacate the suit premises, hence, suit for possession. It was the contention of the defendant/respondent that the defendant is in possession of the suit property by virtue of an agreement of sale entered into by the 2 plaintiff/appellant with the defendant/respondent's wife. The defendant/ respondent submits that his wife is in possession of the suit property under an agreement of sale and he, therefore, cannot be evicted. He contended that his wife should have been made party to the suit. 3. I have gone through the description of the suit property in the plaint. The site is described by boundaries and survey number. It would be improper to grant an injunction in respect of an entire survey number as it is difficult to identify the suit property at all. Further, it was the contention of the defendant that his wife is in possession of the suit property under an agreement of sale since 1980. The plaintiff/appellant in his evidence had clearly admitted that he has entered into contract of sale of the said plot with the wife of the defendant/respondent and possession was delivered to her. With this admission, the plaintiff/appellant has not at all made prima facie case for grant of injunction. Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE. adgokar