:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1037 OF 2008 Shri Sitaram B.Hashe, Pune ...Petitioner Versus Sou. Phulan B. Rakhunde and anr. ....Respondents ====== Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar, Adv. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 25TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner is the original Defendant no.1 in the said Suit whereas the First Respondent before me is the original plaintiff. She filed Reg.Civil Suit No.51 of 2006 in the Trial Court against the present petitioner Sitaram, so also, another lady Parvatibai. She claimed injunction against both restraining them from disturbing her peaceful possession. The plaintiff claims the suit property on the basis of a Sale Deed executed in her favour in 1992 by Parvatibai. Parvatibai in turn has become owner of the suit :2: :2: :2: property by virtue of the Sale-Deed of 1968 in her favour by the present petitioner. 2. Parvatibai fully supports the case before the Trial Court, as well as, the Lower Appellate Court at an inter-locutory stage. However, the petitioner is challenging the concurrent orders at the inter-locutory stage, firstly, on the ground that he has filed a suit against Parvatibai for re-conveyance/redemption of the suit property which suit is pending and there is a injunction against Parvatibai restraining her from alienating the suit property. Admittedly, this suit is of 2006. 3. I do not see any difficulty, insofar as, the original Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 before me in filing a suit against the petitioner and Parvatibai to protect her possession. Merely because, the petitioner-original Defendant no.1 in this suit, has filed a Suit against Defendant no.2 to this suit, does not mean that the Original Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction in her own suit, if she is in possession. That apart, both courts have found that the petitioner :3: :3: :3: has alienated the land in 1968 and the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiff/respondent no.1 is of 1992. In such circumstances, and when the aspect of physical possession has been prima-facie demonstrated by the Original Plaintiff relying upon the receipts of Sugar Factory for the years 2003 to 2006 together with the recitals in the Sale-Deed, then, granting of the injunction on the basis of these materials cannot be said to be an exercise of discretion vitiated by any arbitrariness or capricious or arbitrary calling for interference of this court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. No costs. sd/- *******