SM 1 902.ao.920.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 920 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1226 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 920 OF 2011 Shri. Rameshkumar Phulchand Oswal ....Appellant. Versus Shri. Harishchand Phulchand Oswal and ors. ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. Ajay Patil i/b Jagdish G. Aradwad for the Appellant. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 9, 2011. P.C.: An application tendered by the plaintiff/appellant herein at Exhibit-5 claiming an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession over the suit property has been allowed partly. The plaintiff claims that he is owner and possessor of the flat and the shop premises situated at Pune. According to the plaintiff, the suit property i.e. the residential flat has been purchased by him from the income earned by him out of running a shop. Thus, it is claimed that the residential flat is the exclusive property of the plaintiff and he is in possession thereof. The contention of the defendants is that the flat is in the joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendant nos. 3 and 5 are residing alongwith the plaintiff in the suit flat. Sofar as the shop premises is concerned, the Trial Court has recorded the findings that it belongs exclusively to the plaintiff and as such granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession over the shop. As the plaintiff has failed to establish his exclusive possession in SM 2 902.ao.920.11 respect of the residential flat, the Trial Court has refused to grant injunction in favour of the plaintiff as claimed. I have perused the order of the Trial Court and heard learned counsel for the appellant. There is no evidence placed on record to establish that the suit flat is in exclusive possession of the plaintiff. There was an earlier suit presented by the father of the plaintiff wherein the residential address of the father was shown as the suit flat. Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am of the view that the approach of the learned Trial Judge in rejecting the application tendered by plaintiff seeking temporary injunction is proper. 2. There is no merit in the Appeal from Order. The Appeal from Order stands dismissed. The suit was presented in the year 2001 and parties are closely related, it would be appropriate if the suit is expeditiously disposed of. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today. 3. In view of disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of. (R. M. BORDE, J.)