1 wp 4940.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4940 OF 2011 Sumanbai Chandanmal Rathi .. Petitioner Versus Ramesh Bhaskar Patil .. Respondent Shri J. R. Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S. S. Bora, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. Along with the suit the plaintiff also filed an application Exhibit 06 for temporary injunction. The Trial Court allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby present respondent preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal and rejected the application Exhibit 06. The plaintiff has assailed the said order in the present petition. 2. Shri J. R. Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 wp 4940.11 submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The documents on record such as the payment of electricity bills and other documents establishes the possession of the plaintiff. There is no document in favour of the respondent showing that the respondent is in possession of the property. According to the learned counsel, when the Trial Court had exercised the discretion and clamped injunction against the respondent, the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the said discretion. According to the learned counsel, the Appellate Court shall be loath in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. The learned counsel further contends that the benami nature of transaction has been lost sight by the Court below. Even till the year 2007 the name of the plaintiff appeared in the revenue record. All the aforesaid facts prima facie shows the possession of the plaintiff and inter alia the plaintiff was entitled for injunction. 3. Shri Bora, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Court below has considered the nature of the transaction. At this stage, prima facie documents are required to be considered. It is not disputed that the plaintiff has executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent and the sale deed 3 wp 4940.11 clearly contains the recital of handing over the possession. The same is a registered instrument that would prevail. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. The document executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is on record which contains the recital of delivery of possession. So also it is observed by the Appellate Court that there are many other persons who are in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has not specified any particular area in his possession. In such circumstances, when prima facie the Court has found the other persons in possession, then in such circumstances, the blanket injunction cannot be clamped against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. The Court below has taken possible and plausible view. 5. In view of that the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 6. Taking into account the nature of the dispute, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of nine (9) months from today. Needless to state that the observations made above are 4 wp 4940.11 prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall decided the suit on its own merits and dehors the issues raised and observations made in this petition. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11