1 wp184.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 184 of 2011 Mr. Pandharinath Murlidhar & ors. ..Petitioners v/s. Pralhadrao Krushnarao Shitole & ors. ..Respondents Mr. R.M. Hardas i/b. P.N. Joshi for the petitioners. Mr. Pravartak S. Pathak for respondent no.1. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 18, 2011. P.C. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the concurrent orders vide which the Application filed by the present Petitioner for grant of temporary injunction came to be rejected and appeal therefrom also rejected. 2. Shri Hardas learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- plaintiff submits that since by an earlier order, the learned trial Judge has rejected an Application for temporary injunction of the defendant then as a 2 wp184.11.sxw natural corollary he ought to have allowed the application of the plaintiffs. He submits that effect of the learned Judge's two orders is that neither the defendants are in possession nor the plaintiffs are in possession. He submits that such a situation cannot exist. 3. Party seeking an order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 has to establish a prima-facie case on the basis of the evidence that it lead in support of its own case. The learned trial Judge upon appreciation of material on record placed before it had come to the conclusion that plaintiff had utterly failed to discharge that burden. The plaintiffs have not even filed affidavits of neighbouring owners to establish that they were in actual possession of the suit property. In that view of the matter, merely because the application of defendant is rejected, cannot be a ground for allowing the application filed by the plaintiff. The finding of fact recorded by the trial Court has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. 4. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 3 wp184.11.sxw 5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, hearing of the suit is expedited. The learned trial Court is directed to try and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one year from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)