1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5553/2011 Vilasrao S. Ghuge Vs. Santosh G. Vayabhase =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. A. S. Mardikar, Advocate for the petitioner. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATED : 14 th NOVEMBER, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the respondent-plaintiff had a prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff would have suffered grave and irreparable loss, if the injunction was not granted in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The Courts prima facie found on an appreciation of the documents on record that the respondent-plaintiff had purchased the suit property on 12.5.2006 and the plaintiff was since then in possession of the same. The Courts did not give much weightage to the revenue entries recorded in favour of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit as those revenue entries have been challenged by the respondent before 2 the higher authorities. The findings recorded by both the Courts call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.