1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2858 OF 2009 ( Sau. Shubhangi A. Garse and another -: versus :- Purushottam N. Mahakulkar and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 17, 2009. Heard Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs and it has been vacated by the Lower Appellate Court by the impugned judgment. In impugned judgment in paragraph no.10 Lower Appellate Court has found that, though Natthu was claimed to be in possession. Natthu is not party to the litigation. It further found that respondent nos. 1 to 4 before it were not in possession prima facie. Shri Kilor, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has pointed out that, trial Court while granting temporary injunction did not consider the three essential aspects i.e. prima facie case; balance of convenience and possibility of irreparable loss. 2 The facts show that suit is pending since 2005 and dispute pertains to a sale deed allegedly executed by defendant no.1. In the circumstances, it will be appropriate to maintain the possession as found by the lower Appellate Court in paragraph no.10 of its judgment during the pendency of the suit. Suit is accordingly expedited with direction to the trial Court to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31.07.2010. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.