IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2290 of 2011 Dhananjay Utamrao Deshmukh ..Vs.. Bhaskarrao Narayanrao Deshmukh & another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.L. Deshpande, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 22 nd August, 2011. Heard Shri A.L. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the courts have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner is not in exclusive possession of the suit property and therefore was not entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the construction which the plaintiff/petitioner was seeking to make over the property in question. Both the courts prima facie found that the defendants were in possession of part of the property. In such circumstances, both the courts held that the plaintiff was not entitled to grant of temporary injunction as sought by him and instead it was necessary in the interest of justice to direct the parties to maintain status-quo. The orders passed by both the courts appear to be just and proper and call for no interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In any case, the first appellate court had directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose of the same within a period of one year. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan