(1) WP. 1188.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1188 OF 2010 Nanasaheb Sitaram Dhulgand and others .. Petitioners VERSUS Shahajanbi Shabbir Sayyad and others .. Respondents Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for the Petitioners ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] By this Petition, the petitioners are challenging the orders rendered by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Sangamner on application for interim injunction in suit bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 309 of 2006 and by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Sangamner in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 17 of 2007. The petitioners are original defendants. The dispute relates to the approach way. The respondent no.1 claims right of approach way by way of easement. The petitioners had preferred previous Writ Petition no. 7690 of 2008 alleging that the order passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Sangamner was bereft of reasons and therefore, it was un-tenable. The learned Single Judge of this Court, was pleased to allow the Writ Petition and directed the learned (2) WP. 1188.2010 Adhoc District Judge to hear the parties and decide the Appeal afresh. Thereafter, the Misc. Civil Appeal no. 17 of 2007 was re-heard and de-novo decision was rendered. The learned Adhoc District Judge again dismissed the Appeal. The order of injunction is operating against the petitioners and the same was continued by this Court. 2] Upon hearing learned counsel and on going through the impugned judgment, it is explicit that the impugned judgment is based on material which is placed on record. It cannot be said that perverse view is taken. The observations of the first appellate Court are only prima facie and therefore, may not be considered while considering the suit. The concurrent judgments of the two Courts need not be interferred with in the exercise of writ jurisdiction which is limited one. Hence the Petition is dismissed. Final hearing of the suit is expedited and the learned Judge is directed to ignore the observations of the first appellate Court while deciding the suit on merits and to decide the issue regarding availability of easementary rights to the respondent no.1, independently on its own merits. Suit may be decided within a period of 1 year as far as possible. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp