1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4043 OF 2011 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.06.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. 3. Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has a share in the property and as he has share in the property, no injunction can be clamped against a person who is a owner or share in the property. It is further contended that the plaintiff could not have been in exclusive possession of the property even assuming the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel, the Courts 2 below have perversely appreciated the documents and affidavits on record. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The Courts have observed that the name of the plaintiff alone is recorded in the column of cultivation. The Panchanama Exh.47 also shows that during inspection, the plaintiff was found to be in possession. The plaintiff has prima facie shown his possession. The attesting witnesses of the agreement of sale also filed their affidavits. 5. Both the Courts have exercised their discretion and had prima facie come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and had clamped injunction. The said finding is a plausible finding. The writ jurisdiction can not be invoked in view of the fact that finding is a plausible one. The Writ Petition is as such dismissed. The trial Court shall endeavour 3 to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.13.06.2011. asp/office/wp4043.11