1 wp8233.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 8233 OF 2011 Shaikh Hahi S/o Sk. Murtuza PETITIONER -VERSUS- Gangadhar S/o Ambadas Kankal RESPONDENT ...... Shri T.G. Gaikwad, advocate for the petitioner ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20th October, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration that the sale deed is nominal one and that defendant no.1 should re-convey the property to the plaintiff, so also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing his possession. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction. Trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed M.C.A. No. 35/2011 in the District Court. The District Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the trial Court. Plaintiff has assailed the said orders in the present Petition. 2 wp8233.11 2. Shri Gaikwad, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that Courts should have taken into consideration the affidavit filed by the adjoining owners showing that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Though, registered sale deed is executed by the plaintiff, same was nominal document and there was an agreement to reconvey the said property. Even though, the name of defendant is mutated in the revenue record, still plaintiff is in possession of the property. The Court should have taken into consideration the actual physical possession. According to learned counsel, Courts have committed error while rejecting the application. 3. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant is on record. Name of defendant pursuant to the registered instrument is also effected in the relevant revenue record. The Courts have observed that the persons who have filed affidavits are also witnesses of the agreement of sale and sale deed. All these facts have been taken into consideration by the Courts while rejecting the application for temporary injunction. 4. View taken by Courts is plausible view, same does not require any interference by this Court in the limited jurisdiction 3 wp8233.11 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition being sans merits, stands dismissed. 5. Needles to state that the observations made by this Court at this stage are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties dehors the observations made herein. Trial Court shall expeditiously dispose of the suit. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp 8233.11