1 wp 7254.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7254 OF 2011 Radhadevi Laxminarayan Sharma and another .. Petitioners Versus Ansabai Gangadhar Shedge and others .. Respondents Shri A. R. Nikam, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who have filed suit for injunction in respect of land admeasuring 3 H 34R out of gut No. 187. Along with suit the petitioners also filed an application for temporary injunction. 2. The present respondents also filed suit for injunction in respect of land admeasuring 2 H 07R from the same gut No. 187. The present respondents also filed an application for temporary 2 wp 7254.11 injunction. The Trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the present petitioners and rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the present respondents. Two appeals were filed before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present respondent regarding rejection of the injunction application in their suit and allowed the appeal granting injunction in the suit filed by the present petitioners. The present petitioners have assailed the said judgment in the present petition. 3. Shri Nikam, the learned counsel for petitioners strenuously contends that the Trial Court had allowed the application for injunction filed by the present petitioners after considering all the material on record. The District Court should not have interfered with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. The petitioners have shown that their 70R land was encroached by the owner of gut No. 188. In the year 2004 measurement was carried out. The boundaries were fixed and the petitioners got the possession of said 70R land. The ownership of the area owned by the petitioners is not disputed. In such circumstances, the District Court should not have allowed the appeal filed by the present respondents. 3 wp 7254.11 4. Shri Salunke, the learned counsel for respondents supports the judgment and states that the petitioners could not establish prima facie case for their possession over 3H 34R land. Even the boundaries are not properly given by the petitioners. From the Southern side 70R land was encroached by the owner of gut No. 188. The petitioners cannot be in possession of 3H 34R land. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the judgment. The petitioners have sold land admeasuring 2H 07R to the present respondents way back in the year 1993. Both the parties own their land in said gut number 187. The only dispute would be about extent of actual physical possession. It is averred by the petitioners that in the year 2004 measurement of the land was carried out and it was found that the owner of gut No. 188 has encroached over their land to the extent of 70R from the southern side. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were delivered possession of said 70R land. The lower Appellate Court has discussed this aspect and has allowed the appeal filed by the respondents. The said finding is a plausible finding. The dispute appears to be of over laping boundaries. The same could be resolved only after the parties adduce their 4 wp 7254.11 evidence at the time of final trial. As such, I find that the District Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. The injunction applications of both the parties are rejected in the respective suits. The parties shall maintain status quo in respect of possession. 6. Taking into account the dispute, the Trial Court shall decide the suits as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of nine (9) months from today. Needless to state that the observations made above are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court to decide the suits on their own merits on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties dehors the observations made hereinabove. Writ petition accordingly is dismissed. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11