1 wp 4695.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4695 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation Aurangabad Through Commissioner and anr. .. Petitioners Versus Kusum Satish Jaykar .. Respondent Shri V. D. Kadam, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 06TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original defendant. The present respondent had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction in the possession of the suit property along with an application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The District Court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and clamped injunction against the defendant. So also directed the plaintiff to maintain the status 2 wp 4695.11 quo of the suit property, so also in respect of the title i. e. the plaintiff is also restrained from alienating the suit property. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition. 2. Shri Kadam, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Trial Court after considering all the documents on record has rejected the application. The lower Appellate Court on the basis of false and fabricated documents has allowed the application for injunction. The learned counsel further contended that Plot No. 195 was never divided into two. The learned counsel further contends that the sale deed and the affidavit filed by Gangaram was contradictory to each other. The same could not have been relied upon. The learned counsel further contends that it is the petitioner who has constructed the wire fencing and is in possession of the suit property. This aspect has not been considered by the Court below. According to the learned counsel there was no reason for the learned Appellate Court to reverse the findings of the Trial Court. 3. Mr. Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the lower Appellate Court. 3 wp 4695.11 4. The juridiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while dealing with such matter is in very narrow campas. The lower Appellate Court has observed that the documents issued by the defendant itself supports the case of the plaintiff. The defendant had granted the construction permission to construct the compound wall. The name of the plaintiff is recorded in the relevant P. R. card. The N. A. permission has also been granted to the plaintiff. Shri Kadam, the learned counsel states that, the name of the plaintiff in the P. R. card is recorded only as a care taker. 5. The lower Appellate Court has relied on all these documents. At this stage, the Court is required to be prima facie satisfied. The documents issued by the defendants have been relied upon. The genuineness of the documents would be required to be considered after the parties lead their evidence. This is only a prima facie stage. The view taken by the Court below is plausible view. In such circumstances, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. Moreover, the lower Appellate Court directed the plaintiff also to maintain the status quo of the property with regard to its situation and title. So also directed the Trial Court to deal with the matter expeditiously. 4 wp 4695.11 The Trial Court shall decide the matter on its own merits and uninfluenced by the observations made while deciding the application Exhibit 05. The writ petition is as such dismissed, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11