1 W.P.No.6901/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6901 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.V.P.Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.I.Deshmukh, holding for Mr. V.B.Jadhav, advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 20.09.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The Respondent is the original plaintiff, who has instituted the suit for declaration and injunction. Along with the suit the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court granted the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the finding of the trial Court. The defendants have assailed the said judgment in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2 W.P.No.6901/11 Courts below have not considered the existence of an alternate road available to the plaintiff and merely on the ground of a compromise allegedly executed by the father of the petitioners has decided the application. The said compromise is doubtful and would not create any right in favour of the plaintiff. When on the face of it, the petitioners are in a position to show alternate road then in such circumstances, the position as it is, is required to be maintained. 4. Mr.Deshmukh, supports the order passed by the Courts below. 5. Both the Courts on the basis of the documents on record, more particularly, the compromise executed by the father of the petitioners have concurrently observed and held the right of the plaintiff to use the suit road. The finding at this stage is to be based on a prima facie proof. Prima facie, the Courts have come to the conclusion about the existence of the right of the plaintiff. The observations and the findings being plausible need not be interfered in the present Writ Petition. Needless to state that the Court would decide the suit on its own merits on the evidence adduced before it dehors the observations made at the time of deciding the application Exh.6. 6. Taking into account the nature of the dispute, the trial Court shall expeditiously deal with the matter and decide the suit, preferably within a period of nine (9) months from today. 3 W.P.No.6901/11 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.20.09.2011. asp/office/wp6901.11 4 W.P.No.6901/11