1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4199 of 2010 Mohammed Balbhai Shaikalgar ... Petitioner versus Bhimrao Bala Kothavale & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.Ashutosh Gole for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 15th June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 9th March 2010 passed by the learned District Judge II Sangli dismissing his appeal and thereby affirming the order of injunction passed by the trial court. 3. Respondents are plaintiffs and petitioner is the defendant. They are adjoining owners and there is a wall between the two properties. According to the respondent, the wall is a common wall while according to the petitioner, the wall is his separate property and hence he is entitled to demolish the wall. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court have held that prima facie the wall is a common wall 2 and accordingly granted injunction. This finding is possible finding of fact and does not call for interference in exercise of a writ jurisdiction. In any event, at the trial if it is held that the wall is a common wall then by refusing the injunction an irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents and they may not have any remedy because the petitioner not only wants to demolish the wall but erect a new building in place of the said wall. It may be difficult to demolish the new structure if it is allowed to be erected. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the concurrent order passed by the two courts below. However, it would be appropriate to expedite the hearing of the suit. 4. For these reasons, writ petition is dismissed. Trial Court is requested to expedite the hearing of the suit. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)