1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5324 OF 2008 M/s.Technofour .. Petitioner. Vs. M/s.Shree Associates .. Respondent. Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Dhakepalkar, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.A.A.Joshi for the respondent. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 25TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard Mr.Godbole, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Dhakepalkar, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below in the proceedings arising from the application-Exhibit-5 filed by the respondent-plaintiffs. In the application at Exhibit-5, the respondent-plaintiffs prayed for injunction against the petitioner-defendants restraining them from obstructing the plaintiffs from using the property as described in the plaint. The property described in the plaint is a strip of land, being used as an access to the main road. There is a clear finding of fact, recorded by both the courts below, that the access/road in dispute is in existence and according to the petitioner-defendants, it is their private road and the respondent-plaintiffs have no right to use the same. 3. Mr.Godbole, learned counsel for the petitioners took me through the material placed on record and more particularly the sale deed 2 dated 11.6.1990 and the averments in the plaint to contend that the respondent-plaintiffs have absolutely no right in the suit road/access. It is pertinent to note that in the suit the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration that “the sale deed dated 11.6.1990 is void ab-initio being pertaining to town planning road vested in the town planning authority and same is not binding on the plaintiff”. 4. From perusal of the orders passed by the courts below it is clear that they have recorded a finding that final plot no.84, owned by the respondent-plaintiff, is land locked by final plot No.86, 82, 83 and 87 and except layout road 87(c), owned by the petitioners-defendants, no other road is available to the plaintiff to approach their plot. Mr.Godbole in order to show that the findings is not correct, invited my attention to the map annexed to the sale deed dated 11.6.1990 and submitted that the plaintiff’s plot no.84 has access through the corner of plot no.87 to 30ft. vide road on the eastern side and they have been using the said access/road from beginning. From the map, to which my attention was invited to, I do not see any such access provided through plot no.87. It may be true that presently the plaintiff is using access through plot no.87 at the mercy of its owner. But that will not disentitle the respondents-plaintiffs seeking interim relief as prayed in the application at Exhibit-5. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner-defendant has also filed a civil suit bearing No.1166 of 2006 for specific performance of an agreement to sale in respect of the very same plot i.e. plot no.84,which was subsequently purchased by the respondent-plaintiffs, and in the said suit the 3 petitioner made a statement that final plot no.84 has no access and it has access only through marginal space of the petitioner’s property i.e. final plot no.87 (c), which is the disputed access/road. 5. The courts below have considered the matter in proper perspective and have recorded a categoric finding that the respondent’s plot of land bearing plot no.84 is land locked and it has no access, except the access through final plot no.87(c) i.e. the plot owned by the petitioner-defendants. Considering that there are concurrent findings recorded by the courts below and considering that there is sufficient material on record to sustain those findings and considering extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to disturb the findings of fact I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Hence the writ petition fails and dismissed as such. 6. The trial court, however, shall deal with the suit on merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned orders so also in this order, as expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The order of status quo which was running during pendency of the writ petition, at the request of Mr.Godbole, is extended for a period of four weeks from today. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)