1 wp 9872.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9872 OF 2011 Kamlabai Balasaheb Gore and others .. Petitioners Versus Kishor Devidasrao @ Santukrao Joshi and others .. Respondents Shri S. D. Tare, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the original defendants. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The respondent No. 1 also filed application for temporary injunction. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the defendants filed an appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 03.07.2010. Aggrieved thereby the defendants have filed the present writ petition. 2 wp 9872.11 2. Shri Tare, the learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that the petitioners are in possession of the property. The sale deeds would testify this fact. Even the record with the revenue department would also make it abundantly clear that the petitioners are in possession of the property. The learned counsel submits that as against the said evidence there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The learned counsel contends that the Courts below have given perverse finding in respect of the same. The learned counsel further submits that the affidavits filed by the petitioners have not at all been considered by the Court. There was no reason to discard the same. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the order. Both the Courts have concurrently observed on the basis of affidavits and other circumstances that the prima facie case is in favour of the plaintiff. The affidavit of the neighbouring agriculturists filed by the petitioners have been taken into consideration. So also the fact that the defendants resides at Pune, this fact is also considered. The Courts below have arrived at plausible consideration. Moreover, the order impugned is passed in July 2010. Almost for the one and half 3 wp 9872.11 year back and since then the order is in force. In view of all above conspectus of the matter, no case for interference is made out for exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Taking into account the nature of the suit the Trial Court shall expeditiously decide the suit and preferably within a period of six months. 4. Needless to state the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits and on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties dehors the observations made herein. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11