1 WP 3977.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3977 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R.C.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed a Suit for simplicitor injunction. The application for temporary injunction came to be allowed by the trial court. The defendant preferred an Appeal. The appellate court allowed the Appeal and rejected the application ( Exh. 53 ). Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr. R.C.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court after taking into consideration the revenue entries, has allowed the injunction application, but the lower appellate court erroneously allowed the Appeal. The lower 2 WP 3977.2011 appellate court is swayed away more by the fact that the permission is not obtained and the registered sale deed is not executed. According to the learned counsel, the factum of possession only has to be seen and the documents on record show that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment. 4. The lower appellate court has scanned the said agreement on which the plaintiff relies. The agreement is said to be dated 25/7/1995, whereas the stamp paper on which the said agreement is reduced in writing is purchased on 25/6/1996, so also, the recital in the alleged possession receipt and the alleged agreement of sale differ. It has also been observed by the lower appellate court that the land was fallow for much of the time. Even on the date of the Suit, the revenue entry stood in favour of the defendant. All these factors are considered by the Court while allowing the Appeal. The reasonings given by the lower appellate court are plausible reasonings. In light of that, no interference is called for in the Writ Petition. 5. Needless to state that the said observations 3 WP 3977.2011 are prima facie in nature and the trial court on appreciation of evidence, shall independently decide the said Suit. The trial court shall decide the Suit as expeditiously as possible. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3977.2011