1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2363 of 2010 Vasanta Rathod ..vs.. Subhash Pawar and anr. 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 : JUNE 14, 2010. Heard Advocate Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioner/Original Plaintiff. He contends that the courts below have erroneously refused to protect the possession of the petitioner and granted temporary injunction to respondent no.2/ori.defendant. According to him, respondent no.2 gets title and other rights only from respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 could not have dealt with suit property in any way for period of one year. He points out that respondent no.1 has in the face of documents accepted that transaction between the petitioner and respondent no.1 as loan transaction. With the assistance, I have perused the orders passed by the trial court as also by the appellate court. The temporary injunction sought was of protecting the possession. After perusal of revenue record, the trial court has found that there was no prima faice case in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction as those findings cannot be labelled as erroneous or perverse. 2 Considering the stands by respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner, the proceedings in Civil Suit No.36 of 2008 are expedited and trial court is directed to decide the same at the earliest. JUDGE chute