(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8094 OF 2010 Sudam s/o. Khaserao Ransing, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Om Agency, Station Road, Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Ahmednagar, Dist. : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus Uttam s/o. Balasaheb Khedkar, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Karjat, Taluka : Karjat, District : Ahmednagar, and 3 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.B. More, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Anjanvatikar, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.B. Jadhav, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 4. Respondent no.5 deleted. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Mr. A.B. More, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relies upon judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 689, in the case of Kuldeep Umraosingh Ostwal and another Vs. Chandrakant N. Patel and others, to urge that Pursis adopting reply to application for temporary injunction as written statement filed by the petitioner / defendant no.2, ought to have been accepted. He contends that an appeal challenging temporary injunction granted by the trial court was then pending before the appellate court and hence Pursis could not be filed earlier. 2. Mr. Anjanvatikar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, points out that the Pursis has come on record after cross examination of plaintiff by other defendants. He invites attention to other discussion by the trial court to show that the trial court could not notice any sufficient reason for interfering in the matter. 3. Perusal of the order shows that the respondent / (3) plaintiff was cross examined by defendant nos.1, 3 and 4. Thereafter, Pursis has been filed. The Pursis does not give any details and the trial court has looked into that Pursis to note the same. It has found that the defendant no.2 is a businessman who is paying necessary attention and was careful. The Pursis is, therefore, found to be lacking in material particulars. The same has, therefore, been rejected. 4. The judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Umraosingh Ostwal and another Vs. Chandrakant N. Patel and others (supra), in paragraph 6, lays down that a cautious approach should be adopted in such matters. 5. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8094