1 wp 4938.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4938 OF 2011 Shaikh Bablal Shaikh Fatru .. Petitioner Versus Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Fatru .. Respondent Shri Walmik S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 11TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent had filed a suit for injunction restraining the present petitioner from interfering in his possession and from using the way. The respondent also filed an application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court. The District Court allowed the appeal and injuncted the present petitioner from obstructing the plaintiff from enjoyment of a common space between their respective lands out of gat No. 83/1 which is in the form of common bandh 2 wp 4938.11 or cart track. The petitioner has assailed the said order in the present writ petition. 2. Shri Jadhav, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Trial Court after considering all the aspects had rightly rejected the temporary injunction application. It was found by the Trial Court that there was no documentary evidence in the form of village map or otherwise to show existence of road or cart track. Moreover, even the boundaries given by the plaintiff were ambiguous. According to the learned counsel the lower Appellate Court has not considered this aspect. The learned counsel further contends that the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the judgments. At this prima facie stage the Court has found that a common bandh exists between the land of plaintiff and the defendant and the petitioner is restrained from obstructing the enjoyment of the common space i. e. bandh. No further injunction has been granted by the lower Appellate Court. The finding given is plausible finding. In such 3 wp 4938.11 circumstances, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. In the light of above, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that the observations are only prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits after parties adduce their evidence. No costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11