1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1932 of 2008 Shivaji Vishnu Shelke & ors. Petitioners Vs. Jalindar Vishnu Shelke Respondent Mr.S.S.Shah for petitioners. Mr.Rupesh Bobade for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. March 31, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 and respondent are brothers. The respondent has filed Regular Civil Suit No.615 of 2007 seeking perpetual injunction and in the said Suit an application at Exhibit 5 came to be filed for temporary injunction. Another application at Exhibit 16 was also filed seeking permission of the Court to lay some pipes underground so as to connect the existing underground pipes. Both the applications have been rejected by the trial 2 Court. Therefore, Misc. Civil Appeal No.2 of 2008 was filed before the District Court. The said appeal has been allowed by the learned District Judge-1 at Malshiras by the impugned order dated 13/3/2008. . The lower Appellate Court has held that the defendants did not object to the underground pipeline laid by the plaintiff for more than 12 years and the said pipeline was passing through the agricultural land Block No.293/2 and the plaintiff’s land is located in Block No.293/1. For number of years he has been irrigating his land by lifting water from main canal and the pipeline which is underground has been passing through the land in Block No.293/2. Because of some recent feud between the brothers, the defendants started erected cattle-shed and in that process the underground pipeline was damaged. These developments forced the respondent to file a suit and pray for perpetual injunction. The Court Commissioner was appointed and his report has been taken into consideration by the appellate Court. The lower Appellate Court rightly held that prima facie case was made out by the plaintiff for allowing both the applications. I have considered the sketch that has been annexed to the Commissioner’s report and I 3 have no hesitation to hold that the lower Appellate Court was right in directing the defendants to restore the underground pipeline laid by the plaintiff to its original form and position pending the suit. There is some distance between the plaintiff’s house and the last lane of the water supply and, therefore, few pipes are required to be laid to connect the last point so as to pump water to the plaintiff’s cattle-shed and his house. Pending the suit, such relief has been granted. In my considered opinion, the lower Appellate Court has taken a possible view and mainly on the basis that the pipeline was existing for more than 12 years and was passing through the agricultural land Block No.293/2 which was subsequently purchased by the defendant no.1 and the said transaction is under challenge at the instance of the plaintiff. . No interference is called for in the impugned order under the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence the petition is rejected summarily. . The trial of the suit is expedited and the suit be decided preferably by or before 31st August 4 2008 without being influenced by any observations made in this order. (B.H.MARL