gst 1 ao779.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 779 OF 2010. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 966 OF 2010. Mrs.Anuya Sunil Murkar.... ..... .... Appellant. V/s Mrs.Sindhu Abhay Shivalkar .. .... .... Respondent. Mr.Nitin Mulye, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.Satyajeet Mirajkar, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 19th Jan., 2011. PC: By consent the appeal is taken up for final hearing. The appellant challenges the order dated 10.2.2010 vide which the application for temporary injunction has been rejected. The plaintiff claims that she as well as defendant are real sisters and daughters of one Raman Shivram Rajwadkar. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's father was having two rooms, one room was occupied by the plaintiff and the other by the defendants. It is her case that defendant tried to forcibly dispossess and therefore she filed a suit for permanent perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing her possession. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction also came to be filed and the same is rejected. Hence the present appeal. 2. Shri Mulye, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the application. He submits that inspite of finding that the appellant was in possession, the learned trial court has passed an order refusing injunction observing that the plaintiff has gst 2 ao779.10.sxw forcibly entered into suit premises. 3. Shri Mirajkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the contrary submits that the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. He submits that the appellant is not real sister of the defendant. He also submits that mother of the defendant had herself disclosed that the plaintiff is not the real sister and that she was daughter of one Ramchandra Chavan. He further submits that subsequently mother of the defendant left her father and went to reside with said Ramchandra Chavan. He submits that in that view of the matter no interference is warranted. 4. Undoubtedly, the learned trial Court itself came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises. However learned trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff forcibly entered the suit premises in March, 2009 and therefore refused the order of injunction. The question as to whether the plaintiff has forcibly entered into the suit premises or not is to be gone into at the stage of trial after parties lead their evidence. The question as to whether the plaintiff is real sister of the defendant or not would also be required to be considered at the stage of trial after considering the evidence. Since the trial Court itself has come to the prima facie conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises, I find that in the interest of justice the learned trial Court after applying the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury ought to have allowed the application. 5. Prima facie learned trial Court itself has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession. The learned trial Court ought to have taken into consideration that if the injunction as sought for was not granted the plaintiff was likely to be dispossessed from the suit premises as against this defendant was already residing in some other premises. As such it ought to have been seen that even test of balance of convenience, irreparable injury weighed in favour of the appellant. In that view of the matter I am inclined to allow the appeal. Hence order dated 10.2.2010 is quashed and set aside. During gst 3 ao779.10.sxw pendency of the suit the respondent-defendant is injuncted from disturbing the possession of the appellant qua suit premises. Hearing of the suit is expedited. Learned trial Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today. Needless to mention that the observations made herein above and observations made in the impugned order are only for the purpose of considering the application for grant of interim relief and that the trial Court whould not be influenced by the same at the stage of trial. 6. In view of disposal of appeal, Civil Application No.966 of 2010 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of.