1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO..4725/2010 NANDKISHOR DHAKARE ..VS.. SMT. MULABAI BAJIRAO DHAKARE & ANOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.N.Ghuge, advocate for petitioner Shri P.S.Wathore, advocate for respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time. Perused the impugned order passed by the first appellate court on 21.7.2010. The trial court had held that the plaitnifs had not proved a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the plaintiffs. Since the trial court had held that the plaintiffs were not in actual possession of the suit property, they were not entitled to grant of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The first appellate authority reversed the finding recorded by the trial court and held that the documents on record showed that the plaintiff no.2 was in possession of the suit property in view of the execution of the sale deed in his favour on 16.3.2009. It is necessary to note that the report of the Talathi was not filed by the parties before the trial court and the Talathi had visited the 2 spot and had prepared a report after the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs was rejected by the trial court. In such circumstances, prima facie it appears that the first appellate court ought not have relied on the Talathi’s report to reverse the findings recorded by the trial court. Both the parties are claiming to be in possession of the suit property. It is also informed to this court by the learned counsel for the parties that the evidence in this case is recorded since the month of February 2010 and the suit is likely to be decided in the near future. In such circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to admit the writ petition and keep it pending before this court. In the facts and circumstances of the case the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties to maintain status-quo in the matter. The trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible. No order as to costs. JUDGE SMP