1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8258 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.06.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The present petitioners are the original defendants. The plaintiff filed a suit with an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction. The defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. Mrs. Anjali Bajpai Dube, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact, the Courts have relied only on the compromise decree which was never acted upon. The compromise decree is 2 of the year 1980, whereas in the year 1997, plaintiff and defendants had jointly filed the suit against the neighbours. In the same also the observations was made by the learned Judge about locus-standi of the present petitioners. According to the learned counsel only on the basis of the crop inspection report, the trial Court has allowed the temporary injunction. The said entry on the basis of crop inspection report is also stayed. As such the judgments passed by the Courts below can not be sustained. 4. It is not disputed that initially RCS No. 95/1980 was filed. The same culminated into a compromise decree. Pursuant to the said compromise decree, the title of the suit land was given to the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court has observed that the entries in the revenue record in the cultivation column of 7/12 extract in respect of the suit property is in the name of the plaintiffs. The said entries were pursuant to the compromise decree. The reasoning given by the Courts below are plausible reasoning. As such no interference is called for in the supervisory 3 jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. Taking into account the nature of dispute, the trial Court shall expeditiously decide the suit and preferably within a period of six (6) months from today. Needless to state, the observations made are prima facie in nature. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.21.06.2011. asp/office/wp8258.10 4