*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8750/2009 Subhedar Rau Kale and others. ..Petitioners ­VERSUS­ Namdeo Bapu Mane and another. ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.8937/2009 Ramchandra Subhedar Kale. ..Petitioner ­VERSUS­ Eknath Vishnu Kale and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Surel S. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners in both petitions. Mr.M.R.Katiyar, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in both petitions. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 05th November, 2009. PC:­ 1 The Petitioner No.1/Ramchandra in Writ Petition No. 8937/2009 instituted a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by Vinayak (real brother of Petitioner No.1 Ramchandra) in favour of the purchaser by name Namdeo Bapu Mane (Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.8750/2009) is illegal and further prayed for quashing and setting aside the same. In the said *2* suit, an application for temporary injunction came to be filed seeking to restrain the purchaser from disturbing the alleged possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property. The temporary injunction application came to be rejected by the Trial Court and an appeal preferred there against also came to be dismissed. 2 At later point of time, the purchaser by name Namdeo Bapu Mane (Respondent No.1 in WP 8750/09) instituted yet another suit for injunction simplicitor against some of the Petitioners seeking injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession over the suit property. The Trial Court granted the injunction in favour of Namdeo Mane after recording the finding and relying upon the observations made in the earlier order passed in the suit instituted by Ramchandra Kale in regard to possession. The temporary injunction order passed by the Trial Court was challenged before the District Court and the learned District Judge, concurring with the view taken by the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal. 3 Thus, aggrieved by the impugned orders passed in both the suits, the present Writ Petitions are filed. 4 The Courts below have recorded the findings in regard to possession of the purchaser over the suit property on the basis of the revenue record, the Court Commissioner’s report so also the sale deed, apart from other material. 5 Perused the impugned orders, the same take possible view of the matter which does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6 The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the *3* findings recorded by the Courts below while dealing with the application under Order­39 Rule­1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, would weigh with the Court while finally deciding the suits. 7 The apprehension is ill­founded inasmuch as observations made by the Courts are prima facie in nature and would not weigh with the Court while deciding the suits on merit. In the result, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8 At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the suits would be rendered infructuous in the event if the purchaser disposes of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. In response to the said apprehension, the learned counsel for the purchaser (Respondent No.1 in WP 8750/09) makes a categorical statement that the purchaser would not dispose of the suit property till the decision of the suits. The statement is accepted. In that view of the matter, no order is required in this regard. 9 Having regard to the nature of controversy, I hope and trust that the Trial Court would make an endeavour to decide the suits as expeditiously as possible. 10 Writ Petitions are dismissed accordingly. 11 Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. ­sd­ (A.P. Deshpande, J)