1 caa87 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.42 OF 2011 Pirangounda Bhimangouda Patil ...Applicant vs. Nagappa Kondiba Shinde & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.U.R.Mankapure for the applicant Mr.N.A.Vhatkar for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 8,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the order impugned in the Appeal, temporary injunction has been granted on 21 st November 2009 by which the applicant has been restrained from obstructing the possession of the respondents over the suit land. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that though the impugned order is operating from November 2009, in the suit filed in the year 2003, injunction was granted for the first time in the year 2009 and therefore, a case is made out for grant of stay. 3 In the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has recorded reasons why a case for grant of temporary injunction was considered in the year 2009. Order is based on consideration of documentary evidence on record. Moreover, the order of temporary injunction is operating for last more than 14 months. Hence, no case is made out for grant of stay. Application is rejected. 2 caa87 4 Pendency of this appeal will not operate as stay to the proceedings of the suit and the trial Court is free to proceed with the suit. Hearing of the suit is expedited. JUDGE