1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2010 (Vasant Sadashiv Nimkar vs. Hon'ble District Judge-2, Chandrapur & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 23, 2010. Heard Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is original defendant and appellant in MCA no. 30 of 2008. The application at Exh. 5 for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff was allowed on 26.11.2007 and then on 19.12.2007 the petitioner moved two applications. The first application was under Order 39, Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code alleging change of circumstances and second application under Section 114 of CPC for review. Insofar as Section 114 aspect is concerned, Shri Purohit, learned counsel has stated that as the appeal was filed vide MCA No. 30 of 2008 before District Judge -2 , Chandrapur, the appeal needs to be treated as restricted to rejection of application under Order 39, Rule 4. It is his argument that the lower appellate Court erred in holding that appeal is not maintainable. He has addressed the Court even on merits. He has tried to show that out of total sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- amount of Rs.6,900/- 2 was paid by the petitioner way back in 1981 itself. He has also invited attention to other factual aspects of the matter. However, after perusal of impugned judgment of lower appellate Court, I find that the lower appellate Court has restricted itself to find out whether there was any case made out to exercise jurisdiction under Order 39, Rule 4. The said jurisdiction was sought to be invoked by placing reliance upon report of Talathi i.e. dated 01.04.2006 more than one year prior to order below Exh. 5. The suit in which Exh. 5 has been granted is itself having No. 291 of 2007. Shri Purohit, learned counsel has attempted to show that said report of Talathi dated 01.04.2006 could not be procured by the petitioner and hence was not produced. However, said report was after inspection by Talathi and for particular purpose and it is, therefore, difficult to accept said contention. In any case, the lower appellate Court has rightly dealt with this aspect. In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed. The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 291 of 2007 are expedited and Court below is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 28th February 2011. JUDGE *GS.