1 wp-6398-10.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6398 OF 2010 Kisan Parjoji Dhajal & Ors. ..Petitioners v/s. Mohan Masu Bhosale & Anr ..Respondents Mr. N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Suresh Shah for the Petitioners Mr. A.A.Kumbhakoni Senior Advocate i/b Mr. T.D.Deshmukh for the Respondents CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- 1st MARCH, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard. By consent of the parties the Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 360 of 2010, seeking injunction against the Petitioners herein from carrying out any construction or creating third party rights in the suit property. The Respondents have also sought declaration in the suit. In the said suit application for temporary injunction below exhibit-5 restraining the Petitioners from disturbing the peaceful possession of the Respondents, was also filed. Vide order dated 29-5-2010, the Learned Trial Court rejected the 2 wp-6398-10.sxw application. Being aggrieved thereby Respondent Nos.1 & 2 preferred an Appeal and the Learned Appellate Court vide order dated 3-7-2010 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Learned Trial Court. The Petitioner being aggrieved thereby filed the present Petition. 3 Heard, Shri N.V.Walawalkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri A.A.Kumbhakoni, learned counsel for the Respondents. The scope of Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC is very limited. Unless the Appellate Court finds that the view taken by the Trial Court is either perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for the Appellate court to interfere with the same. Equally, it is not permissible for the Appellate Court to interfere, when two views are possible and the Appellate Court finds the other view to be a more appropriate view. The perusal of the orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court would reveal that, the Learned Trial Court vide well reasoned order has refused the order of injunction. However, in the Appellate order, there is not even a whisper that the view taken by the Learned Trial Court is either perverse or impossible. In that view of the matter, I find that the Learned Appellate Court has patently crossed the limits available to him in his jurisdiction of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC. The impugned order is therefore, quash and set aside. 4 The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as 3 wp-6398-10.sxw expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year from today. 5 However, in order to secure the interest of the parties, this Court direct that neither of the parties shall create any third party interest or make any construction on the suit site during the pendency of the suit. 6 The Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)