( 1 ) 929-WP-11354-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 WRIT PETITION NO. 11354 OF 2024 Shaikh Naser Shaikh Ibrahim VERSUS Shaikh Ayas Shaikh Afsar Through Gpa Anil Shantilal Chordiya WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5228 OF 2026 IN WP-11354-2024 Shaikh Fayyaz Shaikh Ayyaz And Others VERSUS Shaikh Naser Shaikh Ibrahim ….. Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Khivansara, Advocate for Appellant through V. C. ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026. PC :- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 2023 filed by the respondents in the Court of learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad. In the said Suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed by the plaintiffs against the petitioner, seeking a temporary injunction. Kiran Kawre 2026:BHC-AUG:40014 ( 2 ) 929-WP-11354-2024 2. The said application was allowed. Being dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner approached the District Court by filing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.129 of 2023. However, by the impugned order dated 18 June 2024, the learned District Judge-4, Aurangabad, recorded his disinclination to interfere with the order impugned therein. 3. Thus, the petitioner has challenged both the orders, i.e., the order granting the injunction and the order confirming the said injunction, in the present petition. The suit is of the year 2023. The application for temporary injunction was tested only on three parameters, i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. On that count, the injunction was imposed and was subsequently confirmed. As it could be seen that the first injunction order has been operating since August 2023. 4. In view of this, I am of the considered view that instead of going into merits of case, the suit could be expedited. However, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to request the trial Court to conclude the suit proceedings in a time-bound manner. 5. Mr. Bajaj, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that in fact the suit proceedings itself are bogus and frivolous. He also objects to the maintainability of the suit. His apprehension is that the findings recorded by the trial Court as also by the First Appellate Court must not influence the trial. Kiran Kawre ( 3 ) 929-WP-11354-2024 6. I do not have any reason to disagree with such submissions. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a request to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad to conclude the suit trial as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of one year from today. It is clarified that any observations marked by the trial Court while deciding the temporary injunction application and the observations made by the First Appellate Court while deciding the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal are restricted to the extent of the Exhibit – 5 application only. 7. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 8. The petitioner is at liberty to demonstrate how the plaint is liable to be rejected/returned and even demonstrate that the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court shall decide the suit and such application, if filed, on its own merits. 9. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] Kiran Kawre