1 AO-520-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 520 OF 2009 Shri Krishanan Janardhana Ayyangar. ... Appellant vs. State of Maharahtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Suresl S. Shah,Advocate, for the appellant Mr. S.N.Gawde, AGP, for the respondent no.1 - State. Ms. Deepa Ahuja, i/b. Shri V.B.Naik, Advocate for the respondent No.3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 13th September, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The plaintiff is appellant before this Court. He claims to be the tenant in the suit premises which are sought to be acquired for road widening project of Solapur Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff field the suit contending that the suit property is not under acquisition and he sought perpetual injunction against taking possession. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to interfere when the land acquisition proceedings has been commenced. Against that dismissal, the present appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2009. In that appeal, he took out an application Exhibit 7 for temporary injunction pending the appeal. That application was also dismissed. Against 2 AO-520-09.sxw rejection of the application for temporary injunction, the appellant has come before this Court. The property in question is said to be under acquisition for the purpose of road widening project of the Municipal Corporation. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 Corporation that earlier the owner of the said building had challenged acquisition unsuccessfully. Even his SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In view of these circumstances, the appellant, who is a tenant in the said premises, cannot be given the relief sought by him. In view of this, I find no substance in the present appeal. 3. The Appeal stands dismissed. 4. The request to continue the interim relief stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)