1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4247 OF 2008 (Sanjay Puranchand Punjabi vs. Puranchand Ramchandra Punjabi & Ors.) 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. OCTOBER 17, 2008. Heard Shri Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents. The lower appellate Court has found that on the date of filing of suit, the petitioner – plaintiff has failed to show that he was in possession. This assumes importance because in plaint, there is no prayer for restoration of possession. The FIR lodged with police complains about dispossession and plaint vaguely states that the lock forceably put by the respondents is removed by the petitioner – plaintiff. However, he has not pointed out that after removing that lock, he started business and then again he was obstructed. No documents about purchase of any material or sale of goods from this shop or any police complaint about the obstruction in the business, commenced after removal of lock, are placed on record. 2 In these circumstances, I find that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is not shown to be either perverse or erroneous. The contention that the trial Court had granted temporary injunction and lower appellate Court has interfered in it, therefore, by itself is of no relevance. Considering the fact the petitioner has taken loan from the Bank for running business and dispute is between father and son, the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 115 of 2008 are expedited. The trial Court is directed to decide the said suit as early as possible and in any case by 30th September 2009. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.