1 wp1710.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1710 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.S. Manale, advocate for the petitioner. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Manale for petitioner-plaintiff. Trial Court protected his possession but then appellate Court noted that the vendor itself is not in exclusive possession of the property allegedly sold and has reversed the order passed by the trial Court and refused to grant injunction. 2. Advocate Mr. Manale invited my attention to sale deed executed by Asaram and also judgment and decree dated 02.02.2007 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 176 of 2002. He however states that the shares as per that judgment and decree are still not separated by metes and bounds. According to him, this fact is considered by the trial Court. 3. When there is no separation by metes and bounds, 2 wp1710.11 the petitioner can not be stated to be in exclusive possession of the suit property. I therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. 4. However, looking to the nature of controversy, the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit no. 80 of 2009 on the file of Civil judge, Junior Division are expedited and that Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. 5. With these directions and observations, the present Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE 14.03.2011 gas/wp1710.11