8-Writ Petition No.2517 of 2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2517 OF 2024 Devidas Bhaskar Thorat Age : 34 Years, Occ. Agri., r/o. Rui, Baramati, Kumbhar Wasti, Tq. Baramati, Dist. Pune and others ..Petitioners Vs. Gulab Eknath Thorat, Age : 45 Years, Occ. Agri., r/o.Bori, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar ..Respondent ---- Ms.M.V.Narwade, Advocate h/f. Mr.V.P.Narwade, Advocate for petitioners Mr.Z.H.Farooqui, Advocate h/f. Mr.N.V.Gaware, Advocate for respondent ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 ORDER :- The petitioners/defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.148 of 2023 pending before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrigonda is carrying temporary injunction order against him. The respondent instituted Civil Suit (supra) against the petitioners for specific performance of contract for execution of of the sale deed of the subject matter suit property. Claiming possession on the basis of the alleged Agreement to Sell the plaintiffs sought interim protection under Order 2026:BHC-AUG:46382 2 8-Writ Petition No.2517 of 2024 XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After hearing the parties the trial court recorded findings in negative against the plaintiff. This resulted into rejection of the application for temporary injunction. 2. The respondent/plaintiff then urged learned District Judge-2, Shrigonda vide Misc. Civil Appeal No.34 of 2023 assailing the findings of the trial court. After hearing the parties the District Court took exception to the view expressed by the trial court that resulted into imposition of temporary injunction against the petitioners. This is vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the District Court. 3. Mrs.M.V.Narwade, learned advocate for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the suit is not stayed and the trial is in progress. She makes every endeavor to satisfy me that the findings of the trial court were based on the documents which clearly doubted the alleged story raised by the plaintiff. She submits that the trial court rightly observed that the plaintiff could not show prima facie case or the balance of convenience in his favour. She further submits that there was no reason for the District Court to interfere into those findings. She thus prays to allow the Writ Petition and to set aside the injunction. 3 8-Writ Petition No.2517 of 2024 4. Mr.Z.H.Farooqui holding for Mr.N.V.Gaware, learned advocate appearing for the respondent would support the impugned judgment and order and pray for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 5. It is trite law that the object of temporary injunction is for an immediate purpose. Since January, 2024 the injunction is in operation against the petitioners. This Court has not stayed the order passed by the District Court. The trial is in progress. In view of this, in my considered view there is no need to disturb the order passed by the District Court at this juncture. Instead it would be in the interest of justice if the trial court is requested to conclude the suit proceedings in a time frame manner. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following order:- A) The Writ Petition stands dismissed. B) The trial court is requested to conclude the suit proceedings within eight months from today. The trial court shall render its findings in the suit strictly on the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties during the trial and without being influenced by any observations made by itself or the District Court in the temporary injunction proceedings. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP