1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1292 OF 2010 Kailash Kashinath Kharate ..Petitioner V/s Madhukar Bhika Chote and others. ..Respondents ......... Mr.R.J. Godbole, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.S. Naik, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 5. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 23rd June, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who filed suit for perpetual injunction (R.C.S. No.142/2008). In his suit, he filed application for interim injunction. The application Exhibit-5 came to be rejected. The first appellate Court also confirmed the rejection order. This Petition is against the concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he (petitioner) was hardly of 16 years and could not have lawfully executed the agreement of sale dated 03.06.2000, which is strongly relied upon 2 by the respondents. It is contended that the agreement itself is illegal and the petitioner had no legal authority to enter into the agreement during minority. Both the Courts below noticed that the mutation entries were carried out in pursuance of the agreement of sale. The discretionary orders can not be regarded as perverse in view of the record produced before the trial Court. Hence, there is no substantial reason to interfere with the discretionary orders. Petition is disposed of with directions to the trial Court to expedite the final hearing of the suit and to decide the same within a period of one year as far as possible. All issues are kept open. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp1292.10(1)