1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1238 OF 2009 Kondu Ganu Late since deceased through L.Rs. Smt. Draupadi Shripad Late &ors........ Petitioners versus Nagesh Khushaba Late since deceased thorugh L.Rs. Sunil Nagesh Late & ors ........Respondents. Mr. P.M.Pradhan i/b. Sanjay Patil adv. for the Petitioner Ms. Gauri Godse adv. for the Respondent no.1. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 27th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present petitioners are original plaintiffs who instituted a suit for injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering with the alleged possession of the petitioner/plaintiffs. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also moved. However temporary injunction application came to be rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners carried Misc. Civil Appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge concurring with the view 2 taken by the trial court has dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition. 2. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondents/defendants are claiming ownership of the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed executed by ancestral of the plaintiff on 10-3-1967. The property is also mutated in favour of the defendants on the basis of the said registered sale deed, though after a period of about 20 years according to the petitioner. As both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiffs have failed to make a prima facie case and establish his possession over the said property, ad-interim relief has been refused. It will not be out of place to mention that the present petitioners have also filed a suit bearing no. 306/88 wherein identical relief was claimed and the same defence was also raised by the present defendants. It is seen from the impugned order that the plaintiff lost in the said suit and thus prima facie the issue raised in the present suit is hit by principle of res judicata. 3. Perused the order. The same takes a correct view of the matter and no interference is called for. Petition is thus summarily dismissed. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)