1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 395 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 2886 of 2010 (d) Gulabrao S/o Laxman Mankhair, Aged about 50 years, Occu. Labourer, R/o Paras, Tal. Balapur, Dist. Akola. .......APPELLANT. ...VERSUS... 1. Sou. Balabai W/o Shankar Kolhe, Aged 68 years, Occu. Household work, R/o Pimpri-Deshmukh , Tah. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. 2. Durga Sadashivrao Dhakre, Adult, Occu. Household, R/o Danapur, Taq. Telhara, Dist. Akola. ......RESPONDENTS. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. S.V.Sohoni, Advocate for the appellant. C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 17th August, 2010. 1] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2] By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 29/6/2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2886 of 2010, by which the petition has been disposed of without granting any relief in favour of the appellant. 2 3] The writ petition was directed against the order passed by the appellate court whereby the application for stay of the judgment and order of the trial court came to be dismissed. 4] Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, which was filed by respondent no.1 – Smt. Banabai Kolhe in 2001, temporary injunction restraining the appellant from entering the suit property was in force. While decreeing the suit, temporary injunction has been confirmed vide judgment and order dated 10/9/2009. In appeal, the appellant prayed for stay of the judgment of the trial court contending that during the pendency of the suit, he was in possession of a room as a labourer and was looking after the property of the plaintiff (present respondent no.1) and her mother. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that temporary injunction was running against him since 2001 till the disposal of the suit in September, 2009. 5] In view thereof, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the prayer in the writ petition. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed in the writ petition. 6] Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale