1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3571 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2374 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7024 OF 2008 Madavalappa Nageshi Malage & ors. Amirsahab Dhulasaheb Manure ........ Petitioners versus Amirsaheb Dhulasaheb Manore Nageshi Madvalappa Malage & ors........Respondent. Mr. Mr. Anand Kulkarni adv. for the Petitioners in W.P. 3571/08 and for respondents in W.P. 7024/08. Mr. S.G. Kudle adv. for the Respondents in W.P. 3571/08 and for petitioners in W.P. W.P. 7024/08. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 10th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. This writ petition is filed by the original defendant against whom the respondent plaintiff has instituted a suit for injunction. In the said suit filed for perpetual injunction, an application for temporary injunction was moved and the trial court being satisfied 2 that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, at the time of institution of the suit and having further found that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the vendors whose names were recorded as owners in possession in the revenue records, proceeded to grant temporary injunction as prayed for. Even according to the present petitioners, the vendors are co owners of the property and thus admittedly the plaintiff has purchased the suit property for valuable consideration from the vendors. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court the petitioner filed an appeal before the District court. The appellate court concurring with the finding recorded by the trial court and holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, confirmed the order of temporary injunction. These are the orders which are challenged by filing the Writ Petition No. 3571/08 by the original defendant. 2. Perused the geological tree, the revenue record and the orders passed by the courts below. In the light of the said documents the finding recorded by the courts below in regard to the possession of the plaintiff is a possible view, to be taken on the material on record and hence the same does not call for any interference more so in exercise of writ jurisdiction. As the courts below have taken a possible view of the matter, I do not wish to interfere with the same. In the result W.P. No.3571/09 stands rejected. 3. The original plaintiff has filed W. P. No. 7024/08 which arises 3 out of a subsequent suit filed by the defendants in W.P. No. 3571/08. The defendant filed the suit for partition and separate possession against the vendors and the plaintiff (in W.P. 3571/08). Both the suits are directed to be clubbed and disposed of together as it was found that the trial of both the suits together would advance cause of justice and could effectively and completely adjudicate all the issues involved. 4. Both the suits are directed to be decided by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur consequent upon the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Solapur dated 22­9­2008. Perused the order. The same does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, W. P .No. 7024/08 stands rejected. Having regard to the nature of dispute, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to expedite the hearing of both the suits. I hope and trust that the trial court shall make and endeavor to decide both the suits as expeditiously as possible. Needless to mention that all the contentions are left open for the parties to agitate before the trial court. Civil Application also stands disposed of. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)