*1* 55.ao.92.2010.sxw skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 92 OF2010 Feroze Momanshah @ Babanshah Taraporewala ..Petitioner -Versus- Mrs.Anupama B. Shah ..Respondent .......... Mr.G.S.Godbole, Senior Counsel i/by Shailendra S. Kanetkar for the Petitioner. Mr.Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel i/by V.R.Mishra for Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 By way of the present appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 11th November 2009 vide which the learned trial court has allowed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff for temporary injunction, restraining the present appellant from creating any third party interest and from causing any interference in respect of the suit property. 2 Mr.Godbole, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has grossly erred in allowing the application. He *2* 55.ao.92.2010.sxw submits that the alleged memorandum of understanding, the basis on which an injunction has been granted is not even a registered document. He further submits that the learned trial Court has not applied its mind to the facts of the case. It is submitted that though the plaintiff has not prayed, the learned trial Court has granted an order against the defendant from creating interference in respect of the suit property. 3 Mr.Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the contrary submits that the learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for allowing the application and as such, no interference is warranted. He fairly concedes that the plaintiff are not claiming to be in possession. He further submits that the plaintiff would not seek adjournment in the suit which is at the stage of evidence. 4 The scope of an appeal under order under order 43 rule 1(V) is very limited. Unless it is found that the findings recorded are perverse or impossible, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. Equally, it is not permissible to upset the order of the trial Court, when two views are possible, only because the Court finds that the other view is more appropriate view. 5 The learned trial Court has given reasons which cannot be said to be *3* 55.ao.92.2010.sxw perverse or impossible. In any case, since the suit is at the state of evidence, I find that the interest of justice would be met by directing the learned trial court to decide the suit itself as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 5 It appears that the operative part of the impugned order has not been happily worded. Since the plaintiffs themselves do not claim to be in possession, there could not have been a question of an order of restraint from causing any interference in respect of the suit property in so far as the possession is concerned, 6 However, I find that the interest of justice would be met by reading the operative order to the effect that it would not permit the defendants from interfering with the interest of the parties, by not creating third party interests in the suit property. 7 The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ]