1 wp2435.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 2435 of 2011 Sau Surekha Hemant Shirsath & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Mr. Balu Kondaji Walzade ... Respondents Mr. Rahul D. Motkari for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Shinde for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 05, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard. By consent taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner impugns the order dated 18th February, 2011 vide which the appeal filed by the respondents challenging the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 3rd March, 2010 rejecting their application for temporary injunction, came to be allowed. 2 wp2435.11.sxw 4. It is a settled principle of law that the temporary injunction in the nature of mandatory injunction can be granted only in exceptional and compelling circumstances. I, therefore, find that the learned trial Judge has erred in granting the temporary injunction and that too by reversing the order passed by the trial Court. 5. It is equally settled principle of law that the scope of appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) is very limited unless the Appellate Court finds that the view taken by the trial Court is either perverse or impossible. It is not permissible for the Appellate Court to reverse the same only because it finds the other view to be a more probable view. 6. In that view of the matter, the Appellate order is not sustainable in law. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). 7. However, in order to protect the interest of the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners are directed to maintain status-quo of the property and not to create any third party rights/interest in the suit property. 8. Taking into consideration the nature of the dispute between the 3 wp2435.11.sxw parties, hearing of the suit is expedited and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)