1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 188/ 2007 Pravin @ Pramod Rajabhau Sarnaik vs. Ankushrao Sheshrao Sarnaik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE : 12.6.2008 Heard Mr. A.S.Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition the petitioner takes exception to the Judgment and order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the District Judge, Washim in MCA No. 42/2006 dismissing the appeal against the order dated 11.7.2006 by which the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Risod dismissed the application for injunction filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed the suit against the respondent seeking injunction and sought interim injunction pending the suit. The trial court granted ex parte injunction by order dated 7.6.2006 which was vacated by order dated 21.6.2006 holding that the respondent/ defendant was in possession of the property. Thereafter, the trial court after hearing both sides disposed of the application on merits holding that the defendant was in possession of the suit property and consequently dismissed the application for injunction. The appeal preferred against the said order was 2` also dismissed by the lower appellate court. This court on 8.2.2007 passed the order of status quo. 4. Mr. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under: i) The impugned orders be set aside since they are based only on the inspection carried out by the Naib Tahsildar. ii) In the alternative, he submitted that the order dated 8.2.2007 passed by this court be maintained and the trial of the suit be expedited. 5. Mr. Khapre, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are concurrent findings regarding the possession of the respondent given by both the courts below and there is absolutely no perversity in the findings recorded by both the court and, therefore, no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court. 6. Having regard to the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record I find no merit in the petition. It is pertinent to note that ex parte order granted by the trial court on 7.6.2006 was vacated on 21.6.2006 holding that the respondent/ defendant was in possession of the suit property. Thereafter considering the merits of the rival claims the trial court gave a finding that the respondent/ defendant was in possession of the suit property. The findings given by the trial court were maintained by the lower appellate court. Perusal of the 3` impugned orders discloses that they have been passed upon proper appreciation of the materials on record. As such I am not inclined to accept the submissions of Mr. Chandurkar that the findings given by the trial court are only based on the inspection carried out by the Naib Tahsildar. It is well settled that even an appeal against the order granting or refusing injunction is an appeal on principle and ordinarily the appellate court should have interfere against the order granting or refusing the injunction. In the present case, both the courts below have concurrently arrived at the finding that it is the respondent defendant who is in possession of the suit property. I find no perversity in the said finding. Hence, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 7. At this stage Mr. Chandurkar for the petitioner prays that the suit be expedited. I am not inclined to grant relief sought by the petitioner at this stage. However, liberty to the petitioner to apply for early disposal of the suit and in case such an application is filed the trial court is expected to dispose of the application on its own merits. Judge patle 4`