1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION No. 2563 of 2010 Shankar S/o Ramkisan Tambe ...Petitioner Versus Kundlik S/o Parmeshwar Tambe & others ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.M. Humbe, advocate for the Petitioner ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 29th MARCH, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the District Judge-III, Beed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2009, dated 28th January, 2010. 2. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the rights of the petitioner are crystallized in view of the sale-deed. The petitioner has purchased 96 Are land by way of sale-deed from respondent Nos. 5 & 6. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are causing obstruction in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Therefore, he was constrained to file civil suit in the Court of learned C.J.J.D. Shirur 2 Kasar for declaration and perpetual injunction. In the said suit, an application was moved for temporary injunction, which came to be rejected by the Court below and same order came to be confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, by the impugned order. Hence this Writ Petition. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is bona-fide purchaser and to that effect sale-deed is placed on record before the Court below, which clearly shows that the petitioner is in possession from southern side and respondent No. 4 who is also purchaser, is in possession of 58 Are land. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the documents, which are placed on record i.e. written statement filed by the respondent No. 4, and contended that even respondent No. 4 has admitted the possession of the petitioner in the said land. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also invited my attention to page Nos. 17 to 21 to contend that, the boundaries were fixed and also the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have clearly stated that the possession of the land is handed over to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the case in hand is for temporary injunction and the Court below has utterly failed to exercise its jurisdiction. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the 3 Court below. The Trial Court in para Nos. 17 to 20 has discussed about the documents placed on record and observed that, the partition Deed, on which the petitioner is placing reliance, is unregistered document. The Court observed that the petitioner has failed to prove his possession. The Lower appellate Court has confirmed the findings recorded by the Court below. Therefore, there are concurrent findings of facts that the petitioner prima facie failed to prove his possession. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the petitioner is pending before the Court, in which the rights of the parties would be decided. Relief of temporary injunction is discretionary relief and the concern Court in the given set of facts has to exercise its discretions. No direction can be issued to exercise the discretion in particular manner. 5 In the result, I do not find any substance in the petition. Hence Writ Petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that since the Writ Petition is arising out of only rejection of the application for temporary injunction, any observations made in the order of the Lower Court or Lower Appellate Court or in the present order, the same will not come in the way of the petitioner, while prosecuting the suit filed before the concerned Court. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) SDM* WP2563.10 4