-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 19 OF 2009 IN B.C.C.C. S.C.Suit No. 3597 of 1998 Mrs.Anjali Balkrishna Uchgaonkar & Ors. .. Applicants. (Org.Defendants) V/s. Jayant Gajanan Pathak .. Respondent/Opponent. (Org.Plaintiff) ---- Mr. R.R.Salvi for the Applicants. Mr. Arif Bookwala, Sr. Counsel a/w. Gautam Mehta & Bimal Bhabhda i/by M/s. Apte & Co. for the Respondent/Opponent. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 08th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 08th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 08th APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 2. This civil revision application is filed, challenging the decree granted under the impugned judgement and order by the trial court in respondent’s suit filed under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties on record recorded findings of fact that the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises prior to 17.01.1998 and he was forcibly -: 2 :- dispossessed in the night of 17.01.1998 by the appellants-defendants with the help of gunda elements. The trial court further observed that it is very difficult to accept and believe that the respondent -plaintiff in the night of 16.01.1998 had been with luggage i.e. household articles,bags, stove etc., in the suit premises in order to take possession of the suit premises. A finding of the fact is also recorded by the trial court that the appellant/ defendant could not prove their possession to the suit premises prior to 17.01.1998. There is no dispute that the suit is filed within the period of six months from the alleged dispossession. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants could not point out any perversity in the above findings of facts. It is not permissible to re-appreciate the evidence led before the trial court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 of CPC. Therefore, findings of facts recorded by the trial court can not be disturbed. 3. In view of the above,I find no merit in this civil revision application. The same is accordingly dismissed. (R.V.MORE,J.)