1 wp 2535.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2535 OF 2011 Krishna Haribhau Gund & others .. Petitioner Versus Abdul Rahman Shaikh Jalil and another .. Respondents Shri S. Y. Mahajan, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V. A. Bagal Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The petition is filed by the original defendants. The respondents had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from doing any encroachment and closing the way. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed. The Trial Court allowed the temporary injunction application. Aggrieved thereby the defendant filed an appeal. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. The petitioners assailed the said judgment in the present writ petition. 2 wp 2535.11 2. Shri Mahajan, the learned counsel for petitioners contends that in fact, the Courts below have not at all considered the map. There is no cart way in existence as sought to be agitated by the plaintiffs. The burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove the existence of the way and not on the defendants to show that the other road exists. The learned counsel submits that the Courts below have dealt with the matter in an erroneous manner. The lower Appellate Court in para 8 of the judgment has also considered the matter as if it was for the defendants to prove the alternate road. In fact, the burden is always on the plaintiffs to establish the case. 3. Shri Bagal, the learned counsel for respondents supports the orders passed by the Courts below and submits that both the Courts on consideration of documents on record have arrived at conclusion. 4. I have gone through the judgments. The Courts have considered the map which shows one way is in existence and running from the Western side of gat No. 50 and 51. Both the Courts have taken into consideration this aspect and have clamped injunction. The said finding is prima facie in nature. 3 wp 2535.11 The matter would be finally decided after the evidence is led by the parties. At this stage, I do not see any error committed by the Courts below. This Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not entertain the petition, as the Courts below on prima facie conclusion have arrived at a possible conclusion. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 5. Needless to state the observations made hereinabove are prima facie. The Trial Court shall decide the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11