Single judge dismissed writ petition challenging refusal to grant/continue temporary injunction. Relying on lower courts' finding that respondents possess the property, Court held no case for interference and dismissed petition, while expediting underlying suit filed in 2007.
Petitioners' writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
912.wp.1690.2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1690 OF 2013
Sou. Suman Shivajirao Ghule ..Petitioner
-Versus-
Shri Dilip Changdeo Khare & Ors.
..Respondents
Mr.Dilip Bodake, Advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL 2013
P.C.
1 There is a concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below
against the Plaintiff as regards the grant of temporary injunction. Both the Courts below, based on the material on record, have reached a conclusion that it is the Defendant who is in possession of the property in question. The case of the Plaintiff that the document in question was only nominal one and that the possession was not handed over to the Defendant has not been accepted by the Courts below.
2 In the light of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below as regards possession, no case for interference is made out.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However since the Suit is of the year 2007, hearing of the Suit is expedited.
(R.M. SAVANT, J.)
S.K.Talekar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the concurrent finding of fact regarding possession by the lower courts and dismiss the temporary injunction petition.
Suman Shivajirao Ghule
Dilip Changdeo Khare
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
