1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.101 OF 2009. with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8531/2009. Hirasing Ramasing Chavan - PETITIONER VERSUS Jabbar s/o Suleman Faijlani - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.VD Patnoorkar,Advocate for Appellant; Ms.AN Ansari, Advocate for respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER,2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard both sides. 2) In Special Civil Suit No.53/2009, the appellant came with a case that though he has executed a sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- for 80 R. of the land from Survey No. 6, however, it was a money-lending transaction. There was an agreement of re-conveyance between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent has also raised counter-claim and moved an 2 application below Exhibit-23. On evaluation of the prima facie evidence, the learned Judge recorded, revenue entries, the sale-deed and the subsequent conduct of the plaintiff did not prima facie illustrate to accept his contention to be in possession of the property. The application Exhibit-6 was dismissed while application, Exh. 23 was allowed. 3) Considering the age of the parties and the litigation, I do not see any reason at this stage to disturb the order under challenge, as it is based on the prima facie documents, supporting the contentions of the respondent. 4) The law on the point of grant of injunction is well settled. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the matter of Seema Arshad Zaheer & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, reported in 2006 (5) Mah.L.J. 218 , has in paragraph 30 illustrated the following parameters, - “30. The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff : (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed 3 against the need for protection of defendant's rights or likely infringement of defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.” 5) In the result, the Appeal from Order lacks merits, dismissed. CA disposed of. 6) The learned Judge, seized with Special Civil Suit No.53/2009, shall ensure expeditious disposal, without any unreasonable accommodation to the parties. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/