1 WP 4082.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4082 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.S.Undre, Advocate for the Respondent. ......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/11/2011. PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner has filed a Suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the present petitioner. The respondent aggrieved thereby, filed Appeal before the District Court. The District Court allowed the Appeal and rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2 WP 4082.2011 2. Mr. N.L.Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subsequent event and facts are required to be taken into consideration in as much as the competent revenue authorities have made spot inspection and have verified the possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances, there was no impediment for the Court to clamp injunction against the present respondent. The learned counsel further contends that in the year 1957, the land was shown in possession of the father of the plaintiff and the Tahsildar vide letters issued in the year 2001, 2007 and 2008 directed defendant no. 1 not to claim right over the gairan land and create problem. The Tahsildar also by his proposal dated 12/08/2009 to the Sub Divisional Officer, proposed to delete the name of defendant no. 1 from the revenue record. All these facts should have been considered by the Court. The leaned counsel contends that the decree in R.C.S. No. 95 of 2004 now would be of no avail in view of the subsequent facts. 3. Mr. Undre, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 supports the order and states that the decree in R.C.S. No. 95 of 2004 is still in force, wherein injunction was clamped against the present petitioner in respect of the same suit property. In view of that, now there can not be any contra order. 4. The District Court has taken into consideration the rival 3 WP 4082.2011 case of the parties and the decree in R.C.S. No. 95 of 2004 and has taken a plausible view. In view of the fact that at this stage only prima facie conclusion is to be drawn. I do not think that any error is committed by the trial Court. However, the trial Court shall decide the Suit on the basis of the evidence adduced taking into consideration all the points and dehors the observations made herein. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 6. Taking into account the nature of the dispute, the trial Court shall expeditiously decide the Suit as early as possible and preferably within the period of nine ( 9 ) months from today. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP WP 4082.2011