1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8490 OF 2010 Maksoodkhan s/o. Ibrahim Khan .. Petitioner Versus Afsar Sultana w/o. Gous Mohinuddin Siddiqui .. Respondents --- Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate for the petitioner, CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2011 PER COURT :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] This petition is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in the proceedings arising from Application Exhibit 5. The application at Exhibit 5 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from obstructing and/or interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property. 2 3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of boundaries, as mentioned in the sale deed, was not considered by both the courts below. 4] In my opinion, such an argument cannot be entertained in a writ petition challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below in the proceeding arising from Exhibit 5 application. I find sufficient material on record to sustain the prima-facie findings recorded by the courts below in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is summarily dismissed. However, keeping in view the nature of the controversy involved in the suit, the trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the R.C.S. No. 169/2008, expeditiously. It is needless to mention that the trial court shall decide the suit on merits, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made by both the courts below, so also, in this order, while dealing with the prayer for temporary injunction. [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/