:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1219 OF 2008 Pandurang Laxman Nalawade and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Shamrao Baburao Nalawade and Ors ....Respondents ====== Mr.Rajiv Patil i/by.Dushyant Purekar Adv. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 25TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Mr.Patil appearing for the petitioners. Perused with his assistance, the orders passed by the Trial Court and the lower appellate court. 2. The only contention raised by Mr.Patil is that the revenue entries have been specifically cancelled. The cancellation was upheld right throughout. It is only after the same was upheld by the Divisional :2: :2: :2: Commissioner, that the instant suit was filed. Once, there is a deletion of the entries in favour of the original Plaintiff, then, to hold that he is in possession even at the prima-facie stage was not proper. Further, the lands were partitioned and there is a doubt as to whether the plaintiff could claim any right in respect of the suit property. 3. The Trial court as well as the lower Appellate Court have relied upon the Commissioner’s Report. The Court Commissioner was appointed precisely to report to the court as to whether the Original plaintiff has proved that he is in possession of the suit property. Prima-facie, the court Commissioner’s Report indicates existence of pipeline and Well as found in para-24 of the lower Appellate Court’s order. 4. Further, although the entries are cancelled, no material is produced to show that the possession is restored to the original Defendants. In this view of the matter, and prima-facie material pointing out towards possession of the original Plaintiff in the suit property, that the courts have held that the :3: :3: :3: Original Plaintiff has made out a prima-facie case for grant of injunction to protect the possession, balance of convenience is in his favour and irreparable loss would be caused to him. The Partition Deed is also referred to by both courts and after perusing the same and finding prima-facie that the suit property is not mentioned in the Partition Deed, that the said injunction is being granted. There is no reason to interfere with such prima-facie and tentative conclusions when they are based on the materials produced. It is not possible to accept Mr.Patil’s contention and it is not as if the defendants will have no opportunity. These matters must be gone into and decided in the Trial Court. However, considering the limited controversy between the parties, it would be in the interest of justice if the hearing of Reg.Civil Suit no.53 of 2005 is expedited and the Learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose off the same by 31.12.2008. The Trial Judge not to be influenced by any orders including this court and that of the Trial Court. Petition dismissed. No costs. sd/- *******