1 WP 7291.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7291 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. M.B.Ubale, Advocate for the petitioners. ................................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :22/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent filed Suit for injunction on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by the present petitioner in his favour. Along with the Suit, the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction. After hearing the parties, the trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed Appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the finding of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has filed the present Writ petition. 2. Mr. Ubale, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale deed executed by the present 2 WP 7291.2011 petitioner in favour of the respondent in the year 2003 is a nominal sale deed. The respondent is doing money lending business. As the respondent was not interfering in the possession of the petitioner, no steps were taken by the petitioner. Even the affidavits of the adjoining owners show that the present petitioner is in possession of the property. The learned counsel further submits that the said transaction of sale is hit by Section 22 of the Maharashtra land Revenue Code as the said house is allotted one and no permission is sought. The learned counsel further states that the panchanama shows that the petitioner is in possession of the property. 3. Both the Courts have concurrently prima facie held that the plaintiff has proved his possession. The Courts have relied on the registered sale deed executed in the year 2003 by the present petitioner in favour of the respondent, wherein the recital of delivery of possession is there. The defendant has not challenged the said sale deed for all these years. Both the Courts have prima facie taken into consideration the respective case of the parties and have come to the plausible conclusion. 4. In view of the above, the Writ Petition can not be entertained and the same is dismissed. No costs. 5. Needless to state that the observations made are prima facie in nature and the Court would decide the Suit 3 WP 7291.2011 on the evidence adduced by the parties. The trial Court shall decide the Suit as expeditiously as possible. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 7291.2011 4 WP 7291.2011