1 wp7344.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 7344 of 2010 Mohan Mahdev Suryavanshi & ors. ..Petitioners v/s. Mr. Sanjay Jagannath Keni ..Respondent Mr. R.A. Thorat for the petitioners. Mr. Mohankumar K. Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 03, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th July, 2010 vide which the notice of motion No. 777/2010 in Suit No. 2967/2008 came to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner has filed the suit for declaration that the act of the defendant of breaking the partition wall of the upper portion between the plaintiff's shop No. 153 and defendant's shop No. 151 and storing material and articles on the upper portion of the plaintiff’s shop no. 153 is illegal. 2 wp7344.10.sxw 3. During the pendency of the suit, an earlier notice of motion was filed. The same was rejected. Second notice of motion was filed as aforesaid. The same is also rejected. Hence, the present petition. 4. Shri Thorat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent-defendant has stored the articles in ground floor of shop no. 153 of the plaintiff. He submits that shop of the defendant is no. 151. It is submitted that documentary evidence would show that shop no. 153 belongs to the plaintiff. He submits that voluminous documents were produced on record, the same have not been considered by the learned trial Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the defendant vehemently opposes the petition. The power to grant mandatory injunction in the suit has to be exercised by the Courts in a very exceptional circumstances. Unless compelling circumstances are made out, the Court would not be expected to exercise the power of grant of mandatory injunction. The perusal of the prayer made in the notice of motion would reveal that it seems in the nature of mandatory injunction directing the respondents to remove the articles from 3 wp7344.10.sxw suit premises or in the alternative directing the police station to do so. 6. For the reasons recorded, the learned trial Court has recorded that no case for grant of injunction is made out. No perversity is noticed in the approach adopted by the learned trial Court. Rejected. 7. Since the suit has reached at the stage of evidence, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)