1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1689 OF 2009 Sadashiv Manohar Godge & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Sopan Hariba Godge & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Surel Shah for the petitioners Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the respondent no.1 Mr.Rahul More for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The courts below have granted temporary injunction in favour of the 1st respondent on the footing that their predecessors were possession of the suit land. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to what is observed by the Appellate Court in paragraph 33 of the impugned order. He submitted that there is a certificate under section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 issued in favour of the petitioners which also relates to the suit land. He submitted that the Civil Court could not have entered into the controversy regarding the legality and validity of the certificate issued under section 32-M of the said Act of 1948. He submitted that in view of the certificate which is conclusive in nature, the courts below could not have granted injunction against the 2 petitioner. 3 There is a prima facie finding recoded by the courts below that the 1st respondents has been in possession. It is true that the observations made by the Appellate Court in paragraphs 32 and 33 as regards the certificate under section 32-M of the said Act of 1948 are prima facie erroneous and courts below could not have entered into the merits of the certificate under section 32-M of the said Act. Nevertheless, both the courts below have found that the 1st respondent was in possession. There is no reason to interfere with discretionary order of temporary injunction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that the observations made by the courts below are only tentative observations and the suit shall be decided without being influenced by the said observations. 4 On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, ad-interim relief granted on 28th January 2009 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. JUDGE