1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6474 OF 2009 Sadguru Siddhayog Yogiraj 1008 Shri Gulvani Maharaj Nyaas ...Petitioner vs. Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.V.S.Gokhale for the petitioner Mr.R.D.Rane for respondent nos.1,2 and 6. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 9, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. An affidavit is filed by the second respondent dealing with the averments made in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. In the affidavit, inability has been expressed by the 1 st and 2nd respondents to accept the suggestion made by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the petition. 2 The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by him against the respondents. The suit is for injunction restraining the respondents from carrying out construction of any road or gutter through the suit property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. It is contended that without acquiring any part of the suit property in accordance with law, highhandedly an effort is being made to construct a road through the suit 2 property. An application for temporary injunction was made which was contested by the respondents. The contention raised by the respondents is that there is a road in existence for last more than 28 years and the said road is being repaired/reconstructed. The trial court rejected the application and the said order has been confirmed in appeal. 3 After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is no reason to interfere with the discretionary orders passed by the courts below. The courts below have observed that prima facie the suit property is owned by the petitioner. However, based on various documents, a finding has been recorded that the road was already in existence. Reliance was placed on the application made by the petitioner in the year 2004 in which the existence of the road was admitted by him. Reliance is also placed on the further correspondence made by the petitioner praying for shifting the alignment of the road. There are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below that the road was very much in existence. The finding is that the petitioner was fully aware of the existence of the road and in fact the petitioner filed an application for shifting the road. 4 In the circumstances, the courts below have declined 3 to grant discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction. No case is made out for interference. There is no merit in the petition and the same is rejected. 5 It is, however, made clear that the observations made in the impugned orders as well as this order are only tentative observations and the suit will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the said orders. JUDGE