1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3881 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.3882/2009 Sambhaji s/o Gawaji Mohare Petitioner V E R S U S Sau. Bhamabai w/o Sarjerao Barhate. Respondents Shri A.C. Darandale Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 14 TH DECEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. While dealing with an application seeking injunction, at the instance of plaintiffs, Trial Court granted the same and respondents are restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s over suit land. At the same time, defendant also presented a separate suit wherein an application was tendered seeking order of injunction. The request made by the defendant in a separate suit presented by him was turned down by the trial court. Application presented by the petitioner-herein below Exh.5 in RCS No.190/2008 was allowed whereas application at Exh.5 in RCS No.163/2008 which was presented by the respondent herein was rejected by the trial Court. 2 Respondents herein were restrained from causing interference in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land till disposal of the suit. There were two separate appeals presented to the Lower Appellate Court by the respondents herein. The appeal questioning the rejection of request for grant of temporary injunction made in RCS No.163/2008 is concerned, same was allowed by the First Appellate Court and first appellate Court while dealing with the Misc. Civil Appeal was pleased to grant an order of restrain against the petitioners herein, whereas order of injunction passed in favour of the petitioner herein in RCS No. 190/2008 was quashed and set aside by the First Appellate Court while dealing with the Misc. Civil Appeal. 2. I have perused the orders passed by the first appellate Court in both the Misc. Civil appeals. 3. The petitioner herein is claiming entitlement to the property on the basis of certain family arrangement. Admittedly, there is no registered instrument of transfer of the property. The parties are closely related to each other. The petitioner herein claims that the respondent has given in writing before the revenue authority admitting entitlement of petitioner to respect of the suit property. This fact has been controverted by the contesting respondents. The question raised in the suit in respect of entitlement of the petitioner in respect of suit property is concerned, same is required to be 3 adjudicated after full length trial and after considering rival contention of the parties. At this interlocutory stage of the proceedings, no findings can be recorded in that regard. First appellate court on the basis of primafacie material, recorded finding that respondent has established his case and proved his present possession over the property. The primafacie impression of the First Appellate Court while dealing with Misc. Civil Appeal cannot be said to be final and trial court shall have to deal with the merits of controversy after recording evidence in the matter and at conclusion of trial. However, considering the interlocutory stage of the proceedings, it would not be appropriate for this High Court to cause interference at this stage in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution. Petition stands dismissed. Trial Court, however, is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably prior to end of September, 2010. ( R. M. BORDE, J. ) ..... aaa/3881.09