gst 1 wp8978.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 8978 OF 2009. Somnath Bhagwan Desai & Anr. ... .... ..Petitioners. V/s Radhabai Maruti Gorpade & Ors. .... ..Respondents. Mr.Ajit Kenjale, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.Bohade, i/by Mr.Dilip Bodake, Adv. For R.Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 9. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 22nd March, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent taken up for hearing. By way of present petition the petitioners challenge the order dated 30.9.09 vide which the learned Judge has allowed the appeal filed by respondents herein and set aside the order of injunction passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the present petitioners. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 were the original plaintiffs who filed Regular Civil Suit No.792/07 for partition and separate possession. Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in the said suit were subsequently added party defendants. It was contention of the petitioners that only house property was property of the joint family and the agricultural properties were purchased from their own source of income. The petitioners therefore filed an application below Ex.158 for temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6 from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioners. Learned trial Court on the basis of material placed on record came to prima facie conclusion that the suit lands were in the possession of the petitioners and as such allowed the application. . Same is set aside by the appellate court. gst 2 wp8978.09.sxw 3. The scope of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) is very limited and unless the Court finds that the view taken is either perverse or impossible, it is not possible to reverse the order of the trial Court. It appears from the order passed by the learned Appellate Court that the learned Appellate Court has gone into merits of the matter. At the stage of grant of temporary injunction what is required to be considered is prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Learned trial Court on the basis of documentary evidence viz. 7/12 extract etc. had come to the conclusion that the petitioners were prima facie in possession and even the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were in favour of the petitioners. The order passed by the Appellate Court has been stayed by this court on 16.10.09. It can thus be seen that an order of injunction is operating against respondents from 1.8.2009. 4. In that view of the matter I am inclined to allow the writ petition. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. However in the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing of the suit is expedited and the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one year from today.