IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4289 OF 2008 Tukaram Krishna Patil ..... ..... ...Petitioner V/s Bhagwan Mahipati Patil & Ors. ..... ..... .Respondents. Mr.R.S.Kulkarni, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Sameer S. Pambekar, Adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 5th December, 2009. PC: The present petition is filed by original defendant against whom temporary injunction application moved by the plaintiffs came to be allowed and the petitioner is restrained from interfering with possession of the plaintiffs over the land bearing gat Nos.9(A), 9(B), 250, 320, 405, 765, 779, 227 and 466 . The application for temporary injunction was partly allowed by trial court and hence dissatisfied with that part of the order which rejects temporary injunction in regard to other lands the plaintiffs filed misc. civil appeal. The appellate court has allowed the appeal and granted injunction against the defendant in regard to land bearing Nos.190/1, 190/2, 190/11 and 190/12 over and in addition to relief granted by the trial court. In regard to some other lands even the appellate court has rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs by partly allowing the appeal. The present petitioner did not challenge the order passed by trial court. However present writ petition has been filed challenging the appellate court’s order to the extent it relates to land bearing Nos. 190/1, 190/2, 190/11 and 190/12. In regard to said lands the first appellate court has held that 1 the plaintiffs have succeeded in demonstrating their possession over the said lands in as much as the name of the plaintiffs so also the name of Bali Vithu Patil along with defendants and other co-owners is recorded. Thus though the revenue entries could not decisively through any light on exclusive possession it is held by the first appellate court that the plaintiffs have substantiated their possession over the lands in question on the basis of sugar cane bills, electricity bills which are drawn in the name of the plaintiffs. Placing reliance on those documents which establish the possession of the plaintiffs relief has been granted in relation to the lands bearing Gat Nos.190/1, 190/2, 190/11 and 190/12. Perused the order. The same does not call for interference as possible view of the matter has been taken. Besides the same, the injunction is operating against the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the appellate court for over a period of 1 1/2 years. This is additional reason for not interfering with the said order. Having regard to the totality of facts I deem it appropriate to expedite the trial of the suit. I hope and trust that the trial court would decide th suit as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition stands dismissed. 05.12.2009. 2