( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 311 OF 2010 Sakharam s/o Munjaji Bhokare PETITIONER VERSUS Asaram @ Ashroba s/o Janoji Dhakne and others. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.H. Sangole, advocate for the petitioner. Smt.V.B. Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 17th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is to judgement and order, rendered by first Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 22/2009. By that judgement, said Misc. Civil Appeal was allowed and the temporary injunction clamped by the trial Court as per order below Exhibit-5 in suit (R.C.S. No. 96/2007) was set aside. ( 2 ) 3. It is important to note that the petitioner is original plaintiff, who has filed the suit for injunction vide R.C.S. No. 96/2007 in respect of land Survey No. 475/34, admeasuring 38 Ares, as described in the claim clause. Contention of the petitioner was that the said land was purchased from one Rama Pandu Dhakne vide a registered sale- deed dated 25/04/1977. It appears that the petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the vendor i.e. Rama Pandu Dhakne vide R.C.S. No. 38/1977 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Sailu. It appears that the petitioner had alleged that he had purchased agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 445/26, 445/1, 445/34 and 445/38 from said Rama Pandu Dhakne under the sale-deed dated 25/04/1977. That suit was decreed against the vendor i.e. Rama Dhakne, to the extent of injunction excluding the suit land. The plaintiff’s appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No. 44/1980 was dismissed. This Court dismissed the second appeal No. 124/1981. The petitioner/plaintiff did not challenge that judgement any further. Obviously, sale of the suit land by the same vendor to the respondents also cannot be impugned at such a belated stage. The first Appellate Court duly considered the earlier litigation and its impact on the case of the petitioner. The petition involves disputed questions of fact. The discretion ( 3 ) exercised by the trial Court was found to be improperly exercised without considering the earlier litigation and the judgements. The interference by the first Appellate Court is, therefore, well justified. It would be proper to direct the expeditious disposal of the suit in view of the involvement of the disputed questions of fact. Hence, no interference is called for. The petition is dismissed, with direction that the suit (R.C.S. No. 96/2007) shall be expeditiously disposed of by the trial Court and as far as possible within period of six (6) months. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp311-10