dgm gm gm 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 WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5187 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5187 OF 2008 PETITION NO.5187 OF 2008 1. Shri Thoraji Baburao Dhane & ors. Petitioners Vs. Shri Sunil Shivaji Salunkhe Respondent. Shri Vijay Patil i/by Shri V.Y.Jadhav the Petitioner. Shri Dilip Bodake for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 10th November, 2008. : 10th November, 2008. : 10th November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. This is a writ petition filed by the original defendants against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.04.2008 whereby, while dismissing the Appeal the order of temporary injunction passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division dated 31.03.2007 has been confirmed. The Suit is still pending. This Court by order dated 18.07.2008 directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the suit property. The same has been in force till this date. In the result, the injunction order which is confirmed by the Appellate Court remained intact till this date. 2. The findings so given by the courts below that the ( 2 ) plaintiff has proved prima facie case, balance of convenience also lies in his favour and will suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted and accordingly granted the injunction and thereby passed injunction order against the petitioners/defendants with regard to the property in question which is confirmed by the Appellate Court also. The Suit is for simpliciter injunction. It appears from the reasoning given by the courts below that there are litigations pending between the parties with regard to the tenancy rights and right flowing from the document of possession receipts, based upon which the petitioners are claiming to be in possession and cultivating the same. At this stage, however, considering the concurrent findings given by the courts below and as the injunction order is confirmed by the Appellate Court and later on the order of status-quo as passed by this Court, I see there is no reason now to interfere with the said findings. The view so expressed by the courts below in any way cannot be said to be perverse and without any material on record. After considering the material as both courts have granted the injunction against the petitioners, I see there is no reason now to interfere with the same. However, it is subject to status-quo ( 3 ) order as passed by this Court which needs to be maintained by both the parties pending the Suit. The important facet at this stage is not the rights flowing from the document and litigation but the physical possession of the property in question pending the dispute. As the Courts have raised even the doubt about the document dated 3.09.1998, and on the date of the Suit the plaintiff was in possession as supported by material and affidavits and, therefore, as the entire dispute need due deliberation and full trial, the ground of equitable relief of injunction against the petitioners need no interference. 3. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the order of status-quo as passed by this Court shall continue pending the decision of the Suit. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)