1 WP 4412.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4412 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. Shaikh Aftab S., Advocate for the Petitioner .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The respondent/plaintiff had filed Suit for injunction in respect of Plot No. 236 along with an application for temporary injunction. The trial court found the defendant to be in possession and rejected the temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff filed Appeal. The District Court allowed the Appeal and injuncted the defendant from raising any further construction over the suit property. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 2. Mr. Shaikh Aftab, the learned counsel for the 2 WP 4412.2011 petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of Plot No. 84. The Gram Panchayat has also passed resolution to that effect. The construction permission has also been granted to him and even major part of the construction is already over. According to the learned counsel, when the petitioner is in possession of the property, he could not have been injuncted by the court below. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the Judgment. 4. The Court below has relied on the letter issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, wherein it has been stated that by mis-leading the authority, the petitioner has got his name entered in Namuna No. 8-A and has got the resolution passed. In fact, the petitioner has committed encroachment over the suit property. The plaintiff was handed over the possession under the rehabilitation scheme in the year 1985. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is in possession of the property, still, prima facie, the Court has found that the petitioner is not in a position to show his ownership and in that light has restrained the petitioner from further construction over the property. 3 WP 4412.2011 5. All the observations are prima facie in nature. At the time of deciding the temporary injunction application, only prima facie case is required to be considered. It is only after the evidence is recorded, the Court would independently come to the conclusion. At this stage, the Court has taken a plausible view, does not call for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 4412.2011