1 ao1190 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1190 OF 2010 Smt.Indubai Rajaram Chapale ...Appellant vs. Suresh Lahu Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Abhijit Adagule for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 8,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. The appellant filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 19 th June 2008 in respect of the suit property was not binding on her. By the impugned order, the application for temporary injunction made by the Appellant in her suit has been rejected by the trial Court. 2 After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I find that there is no error in the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. The recitals in the sale deed dated 19 th June 2008 show that the first respondent was placed in possession. There were documents produced on record which prima facie show that the work of improvement was carried out by the first respondent on the suit property. The Court prima facie found that the first respondent (first defendant) was in possession. In the suit there is no specific prayer for passing a decree for possession. 3 In the circumstances, there is no error in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed. However, all 2 ao1190 contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are expressly kept open. Civil application no.1470 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE