mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4650 of 2008 Munir Rajjak Sayyad & ors .. Petitioners versus Saipan Ladaji Bagwan .. Respondent ... Mr.V.S. Talkute for the petitioners. Mr.S.D. Thokade for the respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 7th August 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Perused the relevant documents. In my opinion, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction against the interlocutory order and particularly having regard to concurrent view recorded by two court below on the factum of possession of the suit property with the respondent. 3. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the decision of our High Court in the case of Chandrakant Shankar Sakpal Vs. Anil Balbhim Khatavkar reported in 2002(4) Mh..L.J. 889. Having regard to the fact situation of the present case where both the courts below have concurrently found that the respondent is presently in possession of the suit premises, in such a case by granting interim relief as prayed by the petitioner would result in dispossessing the respondent from the suit premises which cannot be countenanced. The argument of the petitioner that the sale deed in favour of the respondent is invalid, is a matter which will have to be considered by the trial court at the final hearing. For the time being, existence of the sale deed is not in dispute. The argument of the petitioner that since the sale deed is invalid the possession of the respondent which is founded on the said sale deed cannot be taken as lawful possession or permit the court to assume that the respondent is in fact in possession, also does not commend to me. 4. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, in my opinion, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence, Writ petition is dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)