IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5758 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 5758 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO. 5758 OF 2007 Shriram Govind Bhabal.... Petitioner versus Meera Vasant Bhandare & ors...... Respondent. Mr. M.K.Shinde i/b Sagar Kasar for the petitioner Mr. Vasant R.Bhandare for Respondent no.1. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 10TH OCTOBER, 2007 DATED; 10TH OCTOBER, 2007 DATED; 10TH OCTOBER, 2007 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. Present petitioner is original defendant against whom a suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent. In the said suit an application was moved claiming temporary injunction seeking to restrain the present petitioner from interfering with the plaintiff’s right of way from the eastern side of the land owned by the petitioner. The trial court had rejected the application. However, the first Appellate Court has restrained the defendant no.1 from obstructing the plaintiff from using the way passing through the eastern portion of his land towards the plaintiff’s land till decision of the suit. The Plaintiff has contended that the defendant no.1 had agreed to give a right of way to her from the eastern side of the land owned by him and accordingly, since the date of purchase of the land, the plaintiff has been using the way for approach. The first Appellate Court has found that the plaintiff has primafacie established the existence of the said right. Coupled with the said fact, the first Appellate Court has also held that there is no other approach way to the plaintiff to reach ghat no.1072 except the way granted by the defendant no.1 from eastern side of ghat no.1057. It is thus obvious that had no temporary injunction been granted by the first Appellate court, the plaintiff would have been put to irreparable loss and undue hardships would have caused to the plaintiff. 2. Perused the impugned order. The same takes a possible view of the matter based on evidence and material on record. Hence no interference is called for. The petition thus needs to be summarily dismissed. 3. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the nature of dispute it would be in furtherance of cause of justice if the suit is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the plaintiff was constrained to initiate proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2(A) on account of breach of the order committed by the present petitioner. I hope and trust that the trial court shall proceed to decide the suit expeditiously, uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order so also this order on merit. ....