1 WP 7022.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7022 OF 2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.M.M.Bhokarikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Resp.No.2 ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed Suit for injunction along with an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court granted temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred Appeal before the District Court. The District Court partly allowed the Appeal, modified the order of injunction to the extent of 1500 Sq.Ft. of the land. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr. Bhokarikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and the Trial Court had rightly prohibited the non applicant no. 2 before the trial 2 WP 7022.2010 court from disturbing the possession of the applicant over the suit property. The lower appellate Court has wrongly modified it to the extent of 1500 Sq.Ft. The learned counsel contends that apart from the lease deeds, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property actually and physically. This aspect has not been considered by the lower appellate court. More over, the defendant had also executed an affidavit in favour of the petitioner, which does not lay down that the petitioner is in possession of lesser area of the property. These aspects are not considered by the Court. 3. Mr. N.B.Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the Order passed by the District Court.. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgments and the documents. 5. The respondent has executed two ( 2 ) lease deeds in favour of the petitioner. One lease deed is for the area of 1000 Sq.Ft. and another is for 500 Sq.Ft. The lower appellate Court relying on two ( 2 ) lease deeds, had clamped injunction of about 1500 Sq. Ft. against the defendant and 3 WP 7022.2010 refused the relief of injunction of the remaining area of the land. Apart from the said documents, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is in possession of the total area of the land. The affidavit which is sought to be relied on by Mr. Bhokarikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not filed before the Courts below and was not available for the Courts for consideration, so also for the other side to dispute the same. As such, the same can not be considered at this stage. 6. In light of the above, the view taken by the Courts below is a possible and plausible view. The Writ Petition as such can not be entertained. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 7. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the Suit as expeditiously as possible. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 7022.2010