Judgment : 1. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 156 of 2003 on the file of the Principle Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nelamangala. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-11-2008 made in M.A. No. 77 of 2004 confirming the order dated 23-1-2004 in O.S. No. 156/2003 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, the petitioner has files this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are: The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 156 of 2003 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nelemangala seeking for judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or his followers or his agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further the plaintiff also made an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for temporary injunction. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) granted an ex parte order of temporary injunction. After service of notice, the defendant filed a detailed written statement and also made an application under Order 39, Rule 4 for vacating ex parte interim order granted in the above suit. 3. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) after hearing the matter, by his order dated 23-1-2004 was pleased to reject the application filed under Order 39, Rule 4 and granted an interim order of injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. 4. The defendant/petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 23-1-2004 made in O.S. No. 156 of 2003 preferred an appeal in M.A. no. 77 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), after hearing the matter by its order dated 17-11-2008 was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner herein confirming the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division). Both the Courts below have given a finding that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the land in dispute. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Courts below, the defendant preferred the present writ petition contending that the finding recorded by the courts below is contrary to law. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and sought for setting aside the order passed by the Courts below. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and sought for setting aside the order passed by the Courts below. 6. The contesting respondent argued in support of the order passed by the Court below. 7. I have carefully examined the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the orders passed by the Courts below. 8. The plaintiff has contended that his father late Gangappa was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After the death of his father, katha has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff and he Continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and he has also produced necessary documents i.e., tax paid receipts, mutation entry and Forms 9 and 10 to show that he was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 9. On the other hand, the petitioner/defendant contended that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing janjar No. 13, property assessment No. 11 measuring East to West 29 feet and North to South 90 feet of Huchanapalya Village, which is inherited from his ancestors. Further, he has also contended that he has filed O.S. No. 690 of 2003 against the plaintiff and the Principle Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore rural District, Bangalore has granted an order of status quo. Hence, the order passed by the Courts below is contrary to law. 10. The Courts below after examining the matter have given categorical finding that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The subject-matter in the suit O.S. No. 690 of 2003 is entirely a different property and is not concerned with the injunction order sought for by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has produced all the relevant records to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and hence the Court below has confirmed the ex parte order of temporary injunction granted earlier. I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any valid ground to set aside the order passed by the Courts below. Further there is no interim order granted in this writ petition. 11. I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any valid ground to set aside the order passed by the Courts below. Further there is no interim order granted in this writ petition. 11. I find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. The suit is of the year 2003 and hence, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nelamangala is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.