1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1814/2010. Madhukar Namdeo Manapure -: versus :- Prakash Jagobaji Suramwar Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 27, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Ms. Shilpa Tapadiya, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri D.A. Sonwane, learned counsel for respondent. Trial Court as also Appellate Court has ordered restoration of possession in favour of respondent who claimed to be a tenant for over 20 years. Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that in suit, injunction prohibiting petitioner from interfering with order disturbing the possession was sought, but in Exh.5 temporary injunction of restoration of possession was claimed. Thus a relief not asked for in plaint was sought as temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and that could not have been granted. According to her, this aspect of the matter is lost sight of by both the Courts. On merits the learned counsel contends that the respondent/ plaintiff surrendered possession voluntarily on 15.07.2008 and thereafter has filed a suit on 25.07.2008 making the grievance. 2 Shri Sonwane, learned counsel contends that both the Courts have concurrently applied their mind and found substance in story of present respondent and therefore has ordered restoration of possession. He argues that legal possession was never handed over by present respondent to petitioner. It is apparent that on 25.07.2008 the respondent / plaintiff pointed an attempt to take forcible possession from him on 15.07.2008. He therefore did not accept to have handed over possession. The application for grant of temporary injunction contained a prayer for restoration of possession and that application is also filed on very same date. Both the Courts have applied their mind and found that respondent / plaintiff is entitled to interim restoration of possession. In this situation, in view of the concurrent finding, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Questions raised by learned counsel for petitioner are kept open for adjudication in Civil Suit. Proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/2008 pending on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sawali are expedited and said Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2010. With this direction, Writ Petition is disposed of, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.