1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2231 OF 2009 Sadanand Bhikaji Mahabare .. Petitioner Versus Mahadev Bhikaji Mahabare & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Sawant for the petitioner. Mr.Prashant Rajput i/by Mr.V.P.Sawant for respondent no.1. Ms.Kokila Kalra for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23 rd July 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who is the original plaintiff. In the suit filed by the petitioner he is relying upon a registered Deed of Partition dated 21 st December 1992 to which the 1 st defendant is a party. The substantive prayer in the suit is that City Survey Officer be directed to carry out survey of the suit property and thereafter demarcate the boundaries as provided in the said Deed of Partition. The second prayer is for perpetual injunction. 2 2. Pending the suit, the petitioner made an application seeking the substantive relief in the plaint as interim relief. The said application has been rejected by the learned trial Judge by order dated 05 th January 2009 which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the reasons recorded in the impugned order and in particular in paragraphs 8 and 9. He pointed out that there is no order of injunction against the petitioner as observed by the trial Court in paragraph 8. The submission is that reasons recorded in paragraph 9 of the order are perverse. He submitted that a suit of such a nature is maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and there was no prohibition against granting relief of the nature sought by the petitioner even during the pendency of the suit. He, therefore, submitted that the application ought to have been allowed. He submitted that no prejudice will be caused to 3 the defendants if application is allowed and a survey officer is appointed to carry out survey. 4. After having considered the submissions, I find that no case for interference is made out. The impugned order is purely interlocutory order. The petitioner is seeking the same relief by way of interim relief which is prayed for as the substantive relief in the suit. There is a contest to suit by the respondents. It is true that the reasons recorded by the learned Judge may not be happily worded and factually incorrect, but, it is not possible to find fault with the order of rejection passed by the learned Judge. Writ Petition is rejected. It is made clear that suit will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the reasons recorded in this order and confirmation thereof of by this Court. Writ petition is rejected accordingly. (A.S.OKA,J)