1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5147 OF 2008. Abdul Rab Abdul Raheman .vs. Sarfaraz Khan Chand Khan and anr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.S.D.Khati, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.Tathod, Adv.for respondents no.1 and 2. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 21st APRIL, 2009. 1. Heard Mr.S.D.Khati, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the two concurrent findings of the courts below. Both the courts below have rejected the application for temporary injunction sought by the present petitioner against the respondents restraining them from obstructing the petitioner/plaintiff from 2 taking water from the Well. 3. Both the courts below have, as a fact, found that the plaintiff/petitioner does not have a right to take water from the suit Well. They have found that the plaintiff's own vendor had filed an affidavit stating that he was never taking water from the Well and have relied upon the affidavit of Taswarkhan Chandkhan – vendor of the plaintiff. 4. I have also gone through the copy of the sale-deed. It is mentioned in the sale- deed that the right of the vendor of the plaintiff to take water from the Well is entered in the 7/12 extract and on that basis such a right is being conferred on the present petitioner/plaintiff. The learned judge of the appellate court has found in paragraph no.8 of the order that there is no entry in the record of right of recognization of the right of the vendor of the plaintiff. In view of these findings, I do not find that courts below committed any error in 3 rejecting the application. There is no substance in the writ petition. Same is dismissed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering hardship because of non- availability of the water. In view of this, it is directed that the suit pending before the trial court be disposed of as early as possible and in any case within period of six months. JUDGE. chute