1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 66 OF 2008 Murlidhar s/o. Bhauro Daud, R/o. Kolthanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad and others ....Applicants. Versus Kaduba s/o. Prabat Daud, R/o. Kolthanwadi, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad and others ....Respondents. Shri. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for the applicants. Shri. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5 & 7 to 9. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 3rd November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri. Solshe, the learned counsel for the applicants, the original plaintiffs and Shri. Gangapurwala, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 8. The applicants/plaintiffs had filed civil suit for partition and separate possession and also making a prayer for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering the possession of the 2 plaintiffs over the suit property. The learned Joint Civil Judge, Aurangabad, by his judgment and order dated 18th September 2007 dismissed the Regular Civil Suit No. 901/2004. The applicants/plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and order by filing the Regular Civil Appeal No. 266/2007. In the said appeal, the applicants/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from obstructing the enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The said application was rejected by the lower Appellate Court vide its order dated 20th February 2008, which is the subject matter of the present appeal against order. 2. Undisputedly there was no order of injunction operating pending the decision of the present suit. The suit has been dismissed. Apparently, there is no prima facie case, as has been rightly observed by the lower Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has considered all the aspects and rejected the application for temporary injunction. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Court. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. 3. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that in Writ Petition No. 3943/2008 filed by the present appellants, this Court had expedited the hearing of the appeals bearing Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 266/2007 and 267/2007 filed by the appellants. Shri. Gangapurwala, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has 3 stated that the matter is fixed on 26th of November 2009 in the Appellate Court. It is, therefore, axpected that the Appellate Court shall make endevour to decide the appeal as per the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3943/2008. 4. With these observations, the instant appeal is dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/ao66.08