hcs 1 w1086.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1086 OF 2011 Jagannath Uttareshwar Kawale .. Petitioner. Vs. Udhav Sukhadeo Anpat .. Respondent. Mr.A.A.Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.D.W.Bhosale for the respondent. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th February, 2011. PC: 1. The appeal challenges the concurrent orders by which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining possession of the plaintiff as co-sharer of the suit property and his right to take water from the suit well has been allowed and the order passed by the learned appellate court thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. Shri Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the trial Court has erred in holding that it is joint family property. He submitted that there is partition at the earlier point of time and as such the plaintiff has no claim in the suit property. The grounds which are sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been raised even in the memo of appeal before the appellate court. Under Article 227 of the Constitution it is not hcs 2 w1086.11.sxw permissible for this court to even entertain such argument. In any case I find that the right of the present petitioner is duly protected since both the courts have held that the petitioner would be entitled to possession only of such of the land as it falls on the share of the vendor. The only injunction that is granted is not to disturb the plaintiff as co-sharer from the land falling to his share and his share in the suit well. 2. Insofar as the land which is purchased by the petitioner is concerned, I find that the interest of the petitioner is duly protected inasmuch as there is no order of injunction restraining from using the land fallen to share of his vendors and to his share in the suit well. In that view of the matter no case is made out for interference by this court in extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, taking into consideration the nature of controversy involved the learned trial Court is directed to decide Special Civil Suit No.10 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year from today. The petition is disposed of. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)