1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITON No. 5445 of 2011 Masjid Peer Bawanpura, Achalpur. Vs. Vijaykumar Madanlal Shroti. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. J.B. Kasat, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Mohta, Adv. for the respondent sole. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 23 rd November, 2011. Heard Shri Kasat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mohta, the learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the repair work to the suit property. According to the respondent-plaintiff, the suit property was leased out to the father of the plaintiff by the petitioner. Since the property was in a dilapidated condition, the plaintiff desired to repair the same and therefore filed the suit for permanent injunction. It was the case of petitioner that the plaintiff was a trespasser and was not entitled to the temporary injunction. The trial court and the first appellate court, however, on an appreciation of the material on record held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. The courts 2 considered the evidence tendered by one of the witnesses in the previous litigation and also the photographs and other documents on record to hold that the suit premises required urgent repairs. The courts recoded a finding of fact that the plaintiff would suffer grave and irreparable loss if the injunction was refused. The findings recorded by both the courts are pure findings of fact and call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. However, in case it is held by the court after deciding the civil suit on merit that the respondent-plaintiff is an encroacher and not the tenant, the plaintiff would not be entitled to adjust the amount spent towards repairs. Even otherwise, the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim equity in view of the repair work done by the plaintiff in the suit property. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.