Gajanan Bhogaonkar Vs. Yeshwant Dhondi Potdar & Ors  INSC 430 (28
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 SCC (6) 544 1995 SCALE (5)234
O R D
was issued with a view to impress upon the parties to settle the dispute
amicably and learned counsel for the respondents in fairness submitted that he
is not informed about the settlement and, therefore, he is unable to impress
upon them to enter into any compromise.
A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant, contended on merits that the
trial court was wrong in its conclusion that the appellant is not in possession
of the land. We do not want to go into the controversy as to who is in
possession of the land. It is true that the trial court on prima facie evidence
found that the appellant was in possession of the land. It was further found
that irreparable injury would be caused to him if ad interim injunction is
granted. On appeal, the District Judge re- appreciated the evidence and came to
the conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the land. High Court
did not interfere on being approached under Article 227.
this stage, it is not desirable to go into the merits of the case and the
findings of the courts below, which would have adverse effect on the respective
interests of the parties. The issue was of prima facie case and of balance of
convenience to grant or to refuse ad interim injunction.
appeal is accordingly dismissed.