1 A.O.No.60/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.60 OF 2011. Ashok S/o Balraj Vallal, Age 48 years, Occ.Service, R/o H.No.64, Samata Colony, Burudgaon Road, Ahmednagar. ... Appellant. Versus 1. Sunanda Govardhan Dhat, Age 46 years, Occ.Service. 2. Govardhan S/o Baliram Dhat, Age 50 years, Occ.Service, Both R/o 2nd floor, Flat No.5, Vighnahar Apartment, Maliwada,Ahmednagar. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Ameet R.Vaidya, advocate for the appellant. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 21.06.2011. PER COURT : 1. This is an appeal by the original 2 A.O.No.60/11 plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and also claimed injunction. The temporary injunction application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. 2. Mr.Vaidya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the possession of the appellant continued on the basis of the agreement which initially was held as a tenant/licensee. The learned counsel submits that even the trial Judge has not discarded the notings but still has not relied on the same. Either the notings are to be accepted in toto or are required to be discarded in toto. The learned counsel further contends that reading of notings would suggest that on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-, the possession that of tenant was continued on the basis of agreement. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel for respective parties, I have gone through the pleadings and the judgments. The trial Judge has discussed in para 10 of the order 3 A.O.No.60/11 the anomalies. The property was in possession of plaintiff's wife who had suffered an eviction decree. The proceedings for eviction against the wife commenced in 2006. The present suit is filed in the year 2010. The trial Judge has held that the plaintiff can not claim his possession pursuant to a part performance as in fact, the tenancy/licensee agreement was between the wife of the plaintiff and the defendant and the wife of the plaintiff continued in possession as the eviction decree has not yet been fructified. 4. The view taken by the trial Judge is a possible view. Moreover, the same is based on prima facie observations. The learned counsel submits that the matter is now fixed for cross- examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff can get the suit decided expeditiously. 5. In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. The appeal as such is dismissed with costs. The observations are prima facie in nature. The trial Judge dehors the observations made shall decide the suit on the 4 A.O.No.60/11 basis of evidence led and shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/Ao60.11