1 ao136.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 136 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9588 OF 2011 Shri. Sanjay Raghunath Patil, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Palaskhede (Mirache), Tal. Jamner Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Sau. Hirabai Govinda Rajput, Age: 57 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Palaskhede (Mirache), Tal. Jamner Dist. Jalgaon and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate for appellant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : This Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order dated 05-07-2011 passed by the District Judge-1 Jalgaon, below Exhibit-7 in Civil Appeal No.190 of 2009. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2 ao136.11 appellant submitted that, the order of injunction was in operation till the suit was decided by the trial Court and thereafter also till 9th October 2009 the said order was in existence. He further submits that, the appellant has extensively established/proved that there are other two alternate ways to the respondents and therefore, if such contention of the appellant was accepted by the trial Court, in that case, the appellant is entitled for continuation of the said interim order which was in operation till 9th October 2009. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, when the trial Court has accepted the case of the plaintiff-appellant that there are two other alternate ways for the use of the defendants, in that case, the lower appellate Court should not have rejected the prayer of the appellant for grant of temporary injunction till the appeal is decided. Therefore, the Appeal from Order may be allowed. 3. I have given due consideration to the 3 ao136.11 submission of learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. It is not in dispute that after 9th October 2009 interim order passed by the trial Court is not in force. While rejecting the application of the appellant, the lower appellate Court has observed in Para-3 that the defendants became owner of their land from their ancestral and the plaintiff has purchased the land Gat No.60 and 49. The lower appellate Court has extensively referred to the findings recorded by the trial Court and reached to the conclusion that, after appreciating the oral and also documentary evidence the trial Court has reached to the conclusion to dismiss the suit and therefore, pending appeal, it would not be appropriate to pass any order of temporary injunction in favour of the appellant. 4. From independent scrutiny of the documents placed on record, I am of the opinion that since the interim order is not in force from 9th October 2009, any intervention at this stage 4 ao136.11 would only create confusion and further complication in the matter. It is not in dispute that the defendants have become owner of their land from their ancestral and the plaintiff has recently purchased land Gat No. 60 and 49. That apart, the order of temporary injunction which was granted by the trial Court was in force till 9th October 2009 and thereafter that ceased to operate. Therefore, while confirming the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court while rejecting the application filed by the appellant for temporary injunction, I think it appropriate to direct the District Judge-1, Jalgaon to expedite the hearing of the Civil Appeal No. 190 of 2009 and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible. No interference is called for. Appeal from Order is devoid of any merits and stands rejected. Consequently, Civil Application stands rejected. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11