1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6265 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.P.D.Bachate, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.P.Latange, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 22.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The present Respondents have filed suit for injunction against the present petitioners. Along with the suit, the Respondents also filed an application for temporary injunction. The trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioners filed Misc. Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. The defendants have assailed the said orders in 2 the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr.Bachate, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the competent authority have held the suit land to be land which can not be a subject matter of transfer. According to the learned counsel, even Commissioner has decided the matter in favour of the petitioners, simply because the names of Respondents are entered in the revenue record, they are not entitled for injunction. The learned counsel further contended that while granting temporary injunction, the Court is required to also consider prima facie valid title. It being an inam land, no title can pass to the present Respondents. According to the learned counsel, the Courts below have not considered this aspect. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. At this stage of considering the application for temporary injunction, prima facie possession is required to be considered. The Courts have discussed the revenue proceedings and the pleadings of the parties before the revenue authority and thereafter 3 have concurrently came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and have clamped injunction. The view taken by the Courts below is a possible and plausible view. 5. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. Needless to state that the observations made are prima facie in nature and Court shall decide the suit on its own merits dehors the observations made at the time of deciding Exh.5. 7. Taking into account the nature of the dispute, the trial Court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.22.08.2011. asp/office/wp6265.11 4