:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2244 OF 2008 Rajaram Eknath Kadam (deceased through LRs) ..Petitioners Vs. Gopinath Eknath Kadam and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.A. Rajeshire for petitioners. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 11, 2008. Date : April 11, 2008. Date : April 11, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Rajeshirke the learned counsel for the petitioners who are plaintiffs in RCS No.64 of 1997. In the said suit they had prayed for perpetual injunction and the learned Civil Judge, J.D. was pleased to dismiss the said suit on 15/7/2006. The petitioners’ father who was the plaintiff approached the District court and filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2006. In the said appeal, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. was filed at Exh.7 and the appellant had prayed for restraining the :2: respondents from disturbing his peaceful possession over the suit properties. 2. The Lower Appellate Court noted that there was no documentary evidence, even prima facie, to show that after the suit was dismissed on 15/7/2006, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit properties. Obviously, the prayer by way of interim relief was almost the final prayer which would have nullified the Judgment and Order in appeal and as rendered by the trial court thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The Lower Appellate Court also noted that it was defendant no.3 who was prima facie in possession of the suit properties on the basis of the 7x12 extract. Mr. Rajeshirke the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said 7x12 extract indicated that the sale transaction in favour of defendant no.3 was void ab initio. Admittedly, such a declaration has not been made by any competent court and in any case when the plaintiff prayed for an injunction in his favour, it was necessary for him to establish prima facie that he was in possession of the suit properties and he could not :3: take benefit of defendants’ lapses, if any. 3. Hence, I do not see any reason to hold that the impugned order is erroneous or perverse so as to call for interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Petition is rejected summarily. Hearing of the appeal is hereby expedited. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)