gst 1 wp1087.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 1087 OF 2011. Vijay Janardan Churi.... ..... ..... .... .....Petitioner V/s Smt.Shailaja Baban Churi ..... .... .... .... ..Respondent. Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar, Adv. For the petitioner. Ms.Gauri Godse, Adv. For the respondent No.1. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 22nd March, 2011 PC: By way of present petition the petitioner challenges concurrent findings of fact vide which the learned trial Court has allowed the application for temporary injunction filed by respondent-plaintiff and rejected the application filed by the petitioner-defendant and the order passed by learned Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. The scope of interference against the concurrent findings of fact and that too in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 are very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion that findings are perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. Both the Courts below upon appreciation of material placed on record have come to a finding of fact that the test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury are in favour of the plaintiff and as such have allowed the application filed by the plaintiff. 3. Even otherwise, the application filed by the present petitioner itself was in the nature of mandatory injunction. Apart from the question as to whether such an application is tenable or not it is by now settled law that an application gst 2 wp1087.11.sxw for mandatory injunction pendente lite has to be granted in very rare circumstances. Petitioner has not made out any case for grant of such mandatory injunction. It can further be seen that the Court below have found that no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner in as much as it has been found that there is alternate remedy available to the petitioner. No case is made out. Hence writ petition stands dismissed.