1 wp 2533.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2533 OF 2011 Dashrath Limba Londhe and others .. Petitioners Versus Barku Bhaurao Khemnar and anr. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Kazi, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the original defendants. The present respondents filed a suit for injunction against the present petitioners from obstructing in their possession. The plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction which came to be allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present petitioners filed appeal before the District Court. The District Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the defendants have filed the present writ petition. 2 wp 2533.11 2. Shri Kazi, the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that both the Courts have not taken into consideration the attending circumstances on record and have arrived at erroneous conclusion. The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiffs were doing money lending business. Said Bhamabai instead of reconveying the property to the defendants, she sold the same to plaintiffs. This aspect should have been taken into consideration by the Courts below. The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiffs have not proved the prima facie case nor have shown their possession, as such were not entitled for injunction. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the judgments. Both the Courts have considered the relevant revenue record showing the plaintiffs' possession over the suit land. It has also been considered that the land has been transfered in the name of plaintiffs' in the year 1997. At this stage prima facie the Courts have found that there is no material to show that the plaintiff No. 2 and Bhamabai were involved in money lending transaction. Both the Courts have arrived at plausible conclusion. The said discretion needs no interference in the supervisory jurisdiction of 3 wp 2533.11 this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no costs. 4. Taking into account the nature of dispute the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11