IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.9085 of 2007. Writ Petition No.9085 of 2007. Writ Petition No.9085 of 2007. National Institute of Bank Management ..Petitioner versus Ali Hamidbhai Daruwala ..Respondent Mr.A.V.Anturkar i.b. Sugandha B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner Mr.Sanjay Salvi for the Respondent Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 5th February, 2008 Dated : 5th February, 2008 Dated : 5th February, 2008 P.C. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against an interim order in Section 6 of Specific Relief Act suit. The petitioner is the original plaintiff whereas the respondent is the original defendant. 2. The Court below has, after referring to the entire material produced at the prima facie stage held that the petitioner-plaintiff, prima facie could not prove the possession in respect of the suit property. Further, the court below has held that the balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioner plaintiff. The disputed property, according to the court below is eastern -2- side of Survey No.22/2B/1. The court below has held in paragraph 14 that the possession is not being proved and considering that the respondent defendant is in possession of the property, the application has been dismissed. 3. Even when this writ petition was moved before the Court, initially an ad-interim order was passed on 11th December, 2007 directing the parties to maintain status quo, so also the respondents were restrained from creating any third party rights. However, even that order has not been continued pending admission. 4. In light of the prima facie conclusions drawn by the trial court, and considering the fact that the petitioner plaintiff could not prove its possession, there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge except to the extent that the respondent-original defendant shall not create any third party rights nor transfer the suit property in any manner until the Special Civil Suit is heard and disposed of. 5. Petition is disposed of with above -3- clarification. In the peculiar facts of this case and when the suit is under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, it is directed that the trial court to endeavour and dispose of this suit as expeditiously as possible and when a period of three months from today. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)