1 W.P.No.9555/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9555 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.R.K.Temkar, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.12.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. Along with the suit, the petitioner had filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court. The District Court also dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the trial Court. The plaintiff has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Temkar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Courts have not taken into consideration the fact that defendants do not claim their ownership rights over land Gat No.300 and their alleged rights according to them are restricted to 2 W.P.No.9555/11 Gat No.291/1. When the defendants in the Written Statement do not claim any right over Gat No.300 then there was no impediment for the Courts to grant injunction in respect of Gat No.300. Learned counsel submits that even the 7/12 extract shows the possession and ownership of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the Courts have given a perverse finding while rejecting the application. 4. At this stage, the Court is required to get prima facie satisfied about the existence of fact. Both the Courts have observed that there are many co-sharers in Gat No.291/1. So also even as per the record relied by the petitioner, the petitioner is not lone owner and possessor of Gat No.300. Up to what extent the area of Gat No.300 extends is also not clear. In view of the above facts, the Court has rejected the application for temporary injunction. 5. The view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. The same needs no interference in the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 7. Needless to state that the observations made herein are only prima facie in nature and the Court would decide the suit on the 3 W.P.No.9555/11 basis of the evidence adduced, dehors the observations made herein. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.13.12.2011. asp/office/wp9555.11 4 W.P.No.9555/11