1 wp2501.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2501 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocates Mr. Salunke for petitioner- defendant and Mr. Kulkarni for respondent-plaintiff. Trial Court as also the appellate Court have restrained the petitioner-defendant from proceeding further with construction. 2. According to Advocate Mr. Salunke, the Courts below have found petitioner in possession and hence, the construction which is now at slab level ought to have been permitted to be completed. The fate of construction can be subjected to outcome of litigation. He further contends that refusal or cancellation of permission to construct by Municipal Corporation is all together different issue which has got no bearing on present litigation. 2 wp2501.11 3. According to Advocate Mr. Kulkarni, the respondent-plaintiff is found to be legal owner and also in possession by the appellate Court. He further states that the petitioner has tried to justify his possession by relying upon unregistered sale deed in his favour by one Shivaji Madane but then appellate Court found absence of material to show any title even with said Shivaji. 4. After hearing respective Counsel, I find that the Courts below have looked into all relevant aspects and thereafter came to the conclusion that it would be fitness of things to stop the construction of present petitioner. The Municipal Authority has already cancelled the permission given to him. His title is found not proper and hence, the appellate Court has maintained the order passed by trial Court. Balance of convenience or possibility of irreparable loss assume importance if prima facie case is established. Here there is no prima facie case in favour of petitioner. 5. As I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity, the Petition is rejected. No costs. However, the interest of justice will be met by directing the trial Court to decide the Civil Suit as expeditiously as possible. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2501.11