1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5981/2010 (Sau. Sangita B. Padhye VERSUS Sau. Vimlabai P. Ade) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri G.N. Khanzode, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.T. Anthony, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 25 , 2011 . Heard. The first appellate Court did not commit any error in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. The first appellate Court rightly considered that the petitioner-plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property and relied on the sale-deed of the year 2001-2002, whereas the defendant claimed to have purchased the suit property by the sale-deed dated 01.06.1999. The first appellate Court held that the trial Court ought not have allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for grant of temporary injunction only because there was no mutation in regard to the suit property in the name of the defendant though she purchased the suit property on 01.06.1999. The first appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiff did not have a prima-facie case as the plaintiff was relying on a sale-deed of the year 2001, whereas the defendant relied on a registered sale-deed dated 01.06.1999. The findings of facts recorded by the first appellate Court cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 2 The only apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court would adversely affect the case of the plaintiff-petitioner on merits, is not well founded as the findings recorded by the first appellate Court while considering the application for grant of injunction are prima- facie findings, which have no bearing on the merits of the case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE