-: 1 :- A.O. 285/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 285 OF 2010 with CIVIL APPL. NO. 371 OF 2010 Pundalik Bhikaji Patil. ...Appellant. Versus Chandubhai N. Patel. ..Respondent Mr. S. H.Mishra for the appellant. Mr. P. S. Dani i/b Mr. Deepak J. Lulia for the respondent. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : June 17, 2011. P. C. : 1. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondent herein is the original plaintiff in Short Causes Suit No. 2150 of 2009. The respondent filed said suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering in his possession of the suit property. Notice of Motion bearing No.1762 of 2009 was taken out by the respondent for temporary inunction against the appellant seeking protection of his possession over the suit property. By the impugned order, the appellant is temporarily restrained from interfering with the respondent’s possession in the suit property. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this srp -: 2 :- A.O. 285/10 appeal. 2. The suit property originally belongs to the Government. The Government allotted this property to one Kamlesh Engineering Works in the year 1972. This allotment was converted into ownership/occupancy by the Government Memorandum dated 27/12/1982. In the year 1988, the suit property was conveyed to the present appellant by said Kamlesh Engineering Works. It is the case of the respondent that in the year 2005, the appellant’s power attorney holder conveyed this property to him. It is also case of the respondent that he is in peaceful possession of the suit property, however, the appellant is interfering with the same. . The appellant, on the contrary, submitted that conveyance/assignment in favour of the respondent by his power of attorney cannot be relied upon since it is without the consent of appellant. He submitted that in this regard criminal proceedings are pending. He also submitted that the appellant is very much in possession of the suit property. 3. Mr. P.S.Dani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary, supported the impugned order. -: 3 :- A.O. 285/10 He relied upon the Deed of Assignment dated 24/2/2005 and Possession receipt dated 12/3/2004. 4. Having considered submissions of both sides and having gone through the impugned order and various documents relied upon by both sides, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The assignment of the property by the power of attorney holder of the appellant is not disputed by the appellant. However, it is the case of the appellant that this assignment by his power of attorney holder is without his consent. This submission has no merit. At the prima facie stage the Court is required to be satisfied about the case of plaintiff. The validity or challenge to the document of assignment will have to be decided at the stage of final hearing of the suit. So far as the possession of the suit property is concerned, the possession receipt is on record. A copy of the same is annexed at page-51 the appeal. The appellant states that his signature on this possession receipt is forged one and for that purpose he has filed criminal complaint. This submission also cannot be considered at this stage as the Court has to see prima facie who is in possession of the suit property. The Court below has recorded a categoric finding that the respondent has proved prima facie case and he is also found to be in possession of the -: 4 :- A.O. 285/10 suit property. In these circumstances, temporary injunction was granted by the Court below. After re-appreciating the facts, I do not find any reason, muchless the justification to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is without any merit and same is, therefore dismissed. 5. In view of the disposal of the appeal, nothing surives for consideration in the C.A. and same is also disposed of. 6. It is needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are made for the limited purpose of disposing of this appeal and the Court below shall not get influenced by the same. The Court below shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by this order. 7. In the interest of justice, the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit. (Ranjit More, J.)