1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5557/2011 Vilasrao Sadhurao Ghuge Vs. Santosh Gajanan Vayabhase =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Advocate for the petitioner. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 14 th NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner-plaintiff did not have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts held that the petitioner-plaintiff would not suffer irreparable injury in case an order of temporary injunction was not granted in favour of the plaintiff. While holding so, the Courts considered the various documents on record and specifically the sale deed executed by the petitioner-plaintiff in favour of the respondent on 12.5.2006. According to the Courts, the corrected mutated entries were not helpful to the case of the petitioner-plaintiff as those entries are challenged by the respondent before the higher authorities. The concurrent 2 findings of facts recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. In the facts of the case, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE Ambulkar.