1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.586 OF 2011 (SUREKHA SANDIPRAO CHARHATE & ANR....VS..RAOSAHEB RAMDAS CHARHATE.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.Rohit Sharma h/f. Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 23, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the first appellate Court on 16.12.2010 granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and restraining the petitioners from causing any sort of interference and obstruction in the possession of the respondent over the suit land admeasuring 77 Are till disposed of the appeal. The respondent had filed a suit against the petitioners for a declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit property and an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the code of Civil Procedure was filed before the trial Court seeking temporary injunction against the present petitioners. The said application was allowed by the trial Court and an appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed. The order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court thus, attained finality. Thereafter the trial Court dismissed 2 the suit of the plaintiff and the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate court along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a similar injunction as was sought before the trial Court. The first appellate Court found that the plaintiff had a strong prima-facie case and balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff and hence, the first appellate Court granted injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The order passed by the first appellate Court on 16.12.2010 is extremely just and righteous and needs no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioners that instead of filing an application for grant of temporary injunction the respondent should have filed an application for grant of stay to the judgment of the trial Court, is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. The respondent rightly filed an application for grant of temporary injunction as similar temporary injunction was granted in favour of the respondent by the trial Court and the same was also confirmed by the first appellate Court. The grant of temporary injunction by the first appellate Court is just and proper. The petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..