1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2250 OF 2009 Shankar s/o Baburao Sawant PETITIONER. V E R S U S Sudhakar Maruti Sawant & anr. RESPONDENTS. Shri M.M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.R. Bagul, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Shri N.P. Bangar Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Beed thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for temporary injunction and order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed a suit for his right of preamption to purchase the suit property and for permanent injunction injuncting the defendant No.2 from disturbing the plaintiffs possession. 2 3. Alongwith this, application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 below Exh.5 also filed for temporary injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from interfering the possession of the petitioner. 4. The learned trial Court upon considering the material placed on record found that the possession of the suit land was with the defendant No.2. It is also observed that as to whether petitioner has preferential right to purchase the suit land or not, as to whether the saledeed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is valid or not are the questions which would be determined after evidence is led. On the material placed before the Court, it is found that the defendant no.2 was in possession of the land in question on the basis of saledeed executed in his favour by defendant No.2. In that view of the matter, the learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an order of temporary injunction. The learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal though on different grounds. I find that the reasoning given by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application of the plaintiff for temporary injunction are cogent and sound. No perversity or infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3 5. The learned appellate Court has dismissed the appeal. Appeal is dismissed by taking into consideration merits of the matter. I find that it was not at all necessary for the learned appellate court to have gone into issue discussed in its order, since the trial Court by a reasoned order and which reasons according to me are cogent and sound, had rejected the application for temporary injunction. ,The learned appellate Court could have restricted its enquiry only so far as three principles regarding grant of injunction are concerned, that is primafacie case, balance of convenience and irreperable loss. I find that learned Principal District Judge has unnecessarily travelled to the other issues and observed that suit itself is not maintainable and dismissed the appeal. It is made clear that learned trial Court while deciding the suit, would not consider the findings recorded by the Principal District Judge. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/office/wp2250.09 4