gst 1 wp9819.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 9819 OF 2010. Suryakant Posha Patil & Ors. ... .... .... Petitioners. V/s ISPAT Industries Ltd. ... .... .... Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Shailesh Shah with Smt.Manorama Mohanthy i/by S.K.Shrivastav & Co., Adv. For the respondents. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 1st April, 2011 PC: By way of present petition the petitioner challenges two orders; one whereby application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction pending appeal was rejected and another for framing the issue of tenancy and referring it to the Competent Court. 2. The plaintiff who claims to be in possession of the suit property as a tenant filed a suit for declaration and injunction. Suit is dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby an appeal is filed. During pendency of appeal aforesaid two applications were filed and the same are rejected. 3. Mr.Dani, learned counsel submits that the learned appellate court in order to protect the possession of the petitioner ought to have granted order of temporary injunction. He further submits that learned appellate court also erred in rejecting the application for framing the issue of tenancy and referring it to the Competent Court on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any evidence on record. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition. 5. In so far as the first order is concerned, admittedly since 2005 i.e. the gst 2 wp9819.10.sxw year in which the suit was filed there was no order of injunction in favour of the present petitioner. In that view of the matter no error could be found in the order of the learned appellate court in rejecting the application. 6. In so far as the second order is concerned by now it is settled law that the issue of tenancy need not be framed merely for asking. Unless a party produces some material or atleast prima facie substantiates its claim regarding tenancy said issue need not be framed and referred to Competent Court. 7. No perversity is found warranting interference in Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition stands dismissed.