1 ao18.07.odt FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Appeal Against Order No.18/2007 ( Smt. Kamalabai Hatwar ..V/s.. Smt. Vimal Prakashe +1 ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.B. Naidu, counsel for appellant. Ms. Manisha Sahare, counsel for respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS J. DATE : 15 th DCEMBER , 2009 . Heard learned counsel for appellant and the respondents. The appeal is against the order dated 4th January 2007 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur whereby the application for temporary injunction filed by respondent was allowed and the appellant, his agents and any other person on his behalf were restrained from alienating the suit property till the decision of the suit. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that no interference is called for in the order passed by learned Judge disposing of the application for temporary injunction. While passing the impugned order learned trial Judge has considered the requisite of granting temporary injunction namely prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and came to the conclusion that respondents/plaintiffs had prima facie 2 ao18.07.odt established that there was an agreement for sale to purchase the suit property though the said agreement was disputed by the appellant to the effect that the same was merely a loan transaction. Learned Judge has held that these aspects are to be decided after adducing the evidence and deciding the matter on merits. The said findings given by the learned trial Judge is while exercising its discretion while disposing of the temporary injunction application. The said discretion cannot be said to have been exercised capriciously or arbitrarily as the findings given by the learned trial Judge are on the basis of material produced by the respondent. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in 1990 (Supplement) Supreme Court Cases 727 in the case of Wander Ltd. and another V/s. Antox India Private Limited at para 14 held that “ The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellant court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The Appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the 3 ao18.07.odt matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and it a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court’s exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. V/s. Pothan Joseph (SCR721).” As such there is no question of interference in the impugned order. I find that the ends of justice would be met in case the suit which is stated to be fixed for continuation of evidence of the plaintiff is disposed of expeditiously. In view of the above, the above appeal is dismissed. The learned 4th Joint Civil Judge , Senior Division, Nagpur is directed to dispose of the suit bearing No.176/2006 as expeditiously as possible and in any event possibly by 30th of April 2010. JUDGE Tambaskar.