1 W.P.No.8990/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8990 OF 2011. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Y.V.Kakade, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 24.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The petitioner also filed application Exh.6 for temporary injunction. The trial Court rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The District Court also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has assailed the said judgment in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Kakade, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has not taken into consideration the affidavits filed on record which would substantiate the factum of possession of the petitioner over the suit property. The learned counsel further contends that at this stage, the merits of the transaction need not be seen. The copy of the unregistered sale deed is placed on record 2 W.P.No.8990/11 which would substantiate the fact. The unregistered document can be taken into consideration for the collateral purpose of showing possession. The learned counsel further contends that the half part of the suit property was transferred in favour of the petitioner by way of partition. This aspect also has not been considered by the Court. The learned counsel further contends that during pendency of the appeal, there was an order of statusquo and the same needs to be continued to protect the possession of the petitioner. 4. Both the Courts have prima facie negatived the contention of the petitioner. I do not see any perversity in the observations made by the Courts below while rejecting the application. At this stage only prima facie satisfaction has to be arrived at. Both the Courts have seen the revenue record and have come to a plausible conclusion. In view of that, no interference is called for in the Writ jurisdiction. The apprehension of the petitioner that the Respondents would alienate the property need not be considered in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Any transaction made during pendency of the suit would not affect the rights of the petitioner. 5. The observations made at this stage are only prima facie in nature and Courts would decide the suit on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. 6. In view of above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 3 W.P.No.8990/11 7. Taking into account, the suit is of the year 2008, the trial Court shall expeditiously dispose of the suit preferably within a period of six (6) months. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.24.11.2011. asp/office/wp8990.11 4 W.P.No.8990/11