1 WP 5440.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5440 OF 2011 Satish S/o Kerunath Gholap .. Petitioner Versus Andhra Bank Through Chief Manager .. Respondent Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri R. B. Shah, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is original plaintiff, who had filed suit for mandatory, so also perpetual injunction and for rendition of accounts. The petitioner had also filed an application for interim mandatory injunction seeking directions against the respondent to deliver the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. The said application was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the present respondent preferred an appeal before the District Court. The District Court allowed the appeal and rejected the application for interim mandatory injunction. Aggrieved thereby 2 WP 5440.11 the plaintiff has filed the present petition. 2. Shri Kale, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 2,46,000/-. As such, no amount would be due and payable to the respondent. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner would run the vehicle. With the respondent the said vehicle is lying idle. In such circumstances, the District Court should not have interfered with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. 3. Per contra, Shri Shah, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that granting interim mandatory injunction would tantamount to decreeing suit itself. At this interim stage such relief could not have been granted by the Trial Court. As such, the District Court has rightly interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court. The claim of the petitioner that no amount is due, is incorrect. The respondent has to recover huge amount from the petitioner. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The suit of the plaintiff is for rendition 3 WP 5440.11 of account and for mandatory injunction. At this stage, it would not be possible to arrive at a conclusion as to the exact amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent. The fact that the vehicle has been repossessed by the respondent is not disputed. In view of that as there are triable issues in the suit, it would be in fitness of things to maintain the position as it is. I do not think any error is committed by the District Court in passing the impugned order. However, at the same time the respondent shall not alienate, transfer or dispose of the vehicle in question in whatsoever manner till the disposal of the suit. Taking into account nature of the dispute, the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. It is submitted that the matter is now fixed for evidence. The Trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit within a period of four (4) months from today. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions and observations. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11