1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.G.R.Syed, advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property bearing plot No.6/P. Along with the suit the petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction. The said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said order in the present Writ Petition. 2 3. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts have not taken into consideration the Hiba-nama in the correct perspective. The suit property is the same which is described in the Hiba-nama. The Courts unnecessarily entered into the jugglery of the Plot No.6 and Plot No.6/P. In fact, the documents on record shows the possession of the petitioner. 4. Mr.Syed, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff could not prove his possession. The defendants have even parted with the property. The plaintiff is not in possession and as such is not entitled for any prohibitory orders. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. The Courts have considered the anomaly in respect of the plot mentioned in the Hiba-nama and the suit property. The view taken by the Courts below is a plausible view. The Writ Petition can not be entertained on the ground that some other view 3 may be possible. The dispute appears to be between the brothers. Even the defendants submit that they have parted with the property. 6. It is submitted that till the disposal of the temporary injunction application by the trial Court, the statusquo was operating and when the appeal was filed it was immediately heard. 7. Taking into account the above conspectus, it will be in the fitness of things to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously and till then the parties shall maintain statusquo as on today. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with directions that the trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and till then the parties shall maintain statusquo as on today. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.08.08.2011. asp/office/wp5852.11 4