1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.95/2009 Harpalsingh s/o Santsingh Rana Age 60 years, Occ-Agri. & Business R/o Osmanpura, Aurangabad, Now Jabinda Estate, Shahanoorwadi, Aurangabad. .. APPELLANT [ORI.PLAINTIFF] VERSUS 1] Hausabai w/o Kashinath Narwade Age : 65 years, Occ-Household, R/o Bidkin, At present C/o Sunil Salve, Lane No.17, Room No.7, Vikholi, Mumbai [Name of this Respondent is deleted as per Court’s Order dt.9/10/09] 2] Radhabai w/o Honaji Age : 80 years, Occ-Household R/o Ghardon, Tq. Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad, Now at Bidkin Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS [ORI.DEFENDANTS] .... 2 Shri P.N.Sonpethkar, Advocate for appellant. Shri Padmakar Deshmukh,Adv. for respondent no.2. .... CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 25/11/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Heard Shri Sonpethkar, Advocate for appellant and Shri Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.2. Name of respondent no.1 is deleted. 2] This appeal challenges the order dated 30/4/2009 passed by learned 6 th C.J.S.D. at Aurangabad, rejecting application below Exh.5 for grant of temporary injunction filed by the appellant-plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.572/08. 3] The appellant is the original plaintiff, who has filed Special Civil Suit No.572/08 for specific performance of contract on the basis of Bharna Pawati dated 19/1/2001 and the receipt of possession dated 1/10/2002. In the said civil suit, application Exh.5 has been filed for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or anyway disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the 3 suit land Gut No.361/1 to the extent of 4 Hectare 98 Aar situated at village Bidkin , Tq.Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. This application was opposed by deft.no.2. The trial Court rejected the said application by an order dated 30/4/2009, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4] The trial Court has recorded a finding that in Regular Civil Suit No.176/82 filed by deft.no.1 against deft.no.2, it was held that deft.no.1 was in lawful possession of the suit property. The said civil suit was decided on 26/8/86. The bharna pawati in question is dated 19/1/01 and the receipt of possession is dated 1/10/02, which are subsequent to the decision of R.C.S.No.176/82. The trial Court has further recorded a finding that deft.no.2 has filed R.C.S.No.250/08 against deft.no.1, restraining the deft.no.1 from alienating the suit field. In the said civil suit, trial Court has granted exparte injunction. As a result, deft.no.1 was restrained from alienating the suit property. However, it is after execution of Bharna Pawati dated 19/1/01 and the possession receipt dated 1/10/02 and hence it had no bearing on the issue. 5] The trial Court further recorded a finding that the order passed on 26/8/08 in R.C.S.No.250/08 does not reflect that deft.no.2 is in cultivating possession of the suit field. It has further recorded a finding 4 that the deft.no.2 has not placed any convincing evidence or material to establish that she has obtained the lawful possession over the suit property. Inspite of recording of this finding, the trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that plaintiff has not brought on record any convincing material to show that he came in possession of the suit field. It has further recorded a finding that the Bharna and Taba pawati is not a registered document and the plaintiff has failed to place on record relevant documents to establish that he is in cultivating possession of the suit property. 6] The finding recorded by the trial Court that the Isar Pawati and the Taba Pawati are not the registered documents to establish the possession of the plaintiff, in my view, is erroneous. The trial Court having recorded the categorical finding that the deft.no.1 has established lawful possession over the suit property, the document viz. Isar Pawati and the Taba Pawati could have been looked into, for ascertaining the actual possession of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract filed on the basis of the said document. The trial Court, having rejected the case of the deft.no.2 that she has failed to establish her possession over the suit property, should have granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The documents produced on record clearly establish that prima facie the plaintiff is in 5 possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience therefore, lies in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court ought to have therefore, granted an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 7] In the result, the instant Appeal from Order is allowed. The order dated 30/4/2009 passed by learned 6 th Jt.C.J.J.D. Aurangabad, rejecting application Exh.5 filed by the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 572/08 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application Exh.5 filed by the plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction is allowed. The plaintiff is entitled to grant of temporary injunction in terms of prayer clause “B”, which shall continue pending the decision of the suit. Shri Deshmukh,Advocate for respondent no.2 prays that the trial Court be directed to dispose of the suit within a stipulated period. It is however, directed that the trial Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, nothing survives in Civil Application No.11830/2009. The same is dismissed.No costs. [R.K.DESHPANDE] JUDGE umg/ao95-09