wp4712.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4712 OF 2011 Nalanda Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The Sports Authority of India & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. F.R. Tandale, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ruturaj Patil, advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. M.N. Navandar, advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : A.V. POTDAR DATE : 7 th DECEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : 1. This writ petition questions correctness and legality of the order passed by 7 th District Judge, Aurangabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 61/2011 dated 8-6-2011. 2. Perusal of the record shows that petitioners herein have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 182/2011 praying for perpetual injunction for the property mentioned in plaint paragraph no. 1. It is noticed that description of the wp4712.11 2 property as given in plaint paragraph no. 1 is not in compliance with Order 7 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that after the suit was filed, an application for temporary injunction was moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that learned trial court was pleased to allow said application which order was challenged before District Court vide Misc. Civil Appeal No. 61/2011. Said appeal came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 8-6-2011 by 7 th District Judge, Aurangabad who was pleased to allow said appeal by setting aside order passed by the trial court. 3. In this background, while hearing, it is found that the suit property for which decree of perpetual injunction appears to be sought for is not properly described. perusal of the order impugned reveals that there are observations by the first appellate court that the suit is ready for trial. During the submissions across the bar, my attention is drawn to the fact that the suit is not only ready for trial but the trial has commenced and witness no. 1 for petitioner / plaintiff is in the witness box. so far as application for temporary injunction is concerned, it is to be decided on the basis of affidavit without cross examination. It is the disputed question of fact as to whether plaintiff / society was in possession of the property on the date of filing of the suit wp4712.11 3 which can be decided only after an opportunity to be given to both the sides to lead their evidence. In the light of this, parties opted for expediting hearing of the suit instead of pressing for order in this writ petition. In the light of this, petition can be disposed of with following order : ORDER . Hearing of Regular Civil Suit No. 182/2010 is hereby expedited and the suit be disposed of in accordance with law before commencement of summer vacation of the year 2012. . Parties to co-operate the trial court for expedite hearing of the suit. . It is hereby made clear that observations made while disposing of this writ petition are prima facie from record and the learned trial court not to influence with these observations. . Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Parties to act on the authentic copy of this order. . Registry is hereby directed to send back R & P forthwith to the lower Court. ( A.V. POTDAR ) JUDGE dyb