1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.129/2009 Shri R.R.Mantri,Adv.for appellants Shri V.D.Salunke h/f Shri G.B.Rajale,Adv.for R.3 to 5. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 23/11/2009. 1] This appeal challenges order dated 1/10/09 passed below Exh.6 by learned District Judge-II, Ahmednagar rejecting application for grant of injunction filed by present appellants in C.R.A.No. 235/09. 2] In para 11 and 12 of the order, the appellate Court has taken into consideration the decision given in Special Civil Suit No.426/96 decided on 28/8/03. The Court also seems to have taken into consideration the order passed below Exh.1 in Spl.C.S.No.186/09 by the trial Court. The trial Court 2 has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause (a) as well as Clause (d) of C.P.C., holding that allegations of fraud have not been particularized and the date of the knowledge of the alleged fraud is also not mentioned in the plaint. 3] Prima facie, whatever objections are raised in the Special Civil Suit No.186/09, prima facie seems to have been concluded by the decision of this Court in First Appeal (Stamp No.8247/05) delivered on 13/11/2006 as well as by the judgment and order dated 3/4/09 passed in W.P.No.4630/07. The most significant aspect is that in Special Civil Suit No.426/96 decided on 28/8/2003, a specific issue was framed as to whether the plaintiffs in the said suit proved that the suit property belonged to them and the same was answered in the affirmative. In Special Civil Suit No.186/09, there is not even a simple averment that the trust was the owner of the property and that the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.426/96 had no right, title and interest in the suit property. In view of this, the finding that property belonged to plaintiff, having become final on 3.4.2009, 3 prima facie, the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.186/09 may not have any right, even if it is assumed that he is the person interested in trust. Apart from this, the order under challenge in this revision application is passed on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and the Regular Civil Appeal is still pending before the appellate Court. 4] In view of this, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the appellate Court. Hence, the instant appeal is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. It is however, made clear that the appellate Court shall decide the appeal, without being influenced by any observation made about, which are based upon prima facie view of the matter. 5] The trial Court shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from today. (R.K.DESHPANDE, J.) umg/ao129-09