1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8355 OF 2009 Sambhajirao Shivajirao Bhosale ...Petitioner vs. Ningappa Lalappa Kamble & Others ...Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioner CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 7, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the 1 st defendant. The trial Court rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs. The Appellate Court has granted a limited injunction restraining the petitioner-1 st defendant from obstructing the joint possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was sufficient material on record to show that prior to execution of the sale deed by the 2 nd defendant in favour of the petitioner, there was a partition of the property of the family and the property sold to the petitioner was alloted to the 2 nd defendant. He submitted that when the suit is ready for hearing, for the first time, the Appellate Court granted temporary 2 injunction. 3 I have considered the submissions. The petitioner is the purchaser through the 2 nd defendant. The case of the petitioner is that the sale was effected after there was a partition of the joint family property. The trial Court which decided the application in favour of the petitioner has not accepted the case of the partition. The petitioner is admittedly a stranger to the family. The Appellate Court has passed an equitable order protecting the joint possession of the parties. This is not a case to interfere in Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. 4 However, it is, made clear that the trial Court will not be influenced by the observations made by the Appellate Court and the confirmation thereof by this court. The suit will be decided on its own merits. JUDGE