1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.137 OF 2011 (NAGORAO V. BAJAD...VS.. RAJARAM G. MALEKAR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.A. Vaishnav, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 17, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioner impugns two concurrent orders passed by the Courts holding that the respondent was entitled to grant of temporary injunction against the present petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/ petitioner from obstructing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. The land in question was, according to the plaintiff, allotted to the plaintiff by the Government in the year 1976. The land of the defendant/ petitioner was situated adjacent to the suit land. The plaintiff pleaded that there was an exchange of land allotted to the plaintiff with the defendant's land by a document executed on 21.11.1988. However, it was the case of the plaintiff that since the sanction of the Government was not obtained before exchanging the said land, the possession of the land allotted to the plaintiff remained in possession of 2 the plaintiff. Since the defendant tried to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, the plaintiff instituted the suit. The petitioner filed a written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was pleaded by the defendant that he had received the suit land in the year 1988 in view of the registered exchange deed from the plaintiff and since then he was in actual possession of the land. The defendant sought for dismissal of the temporary injunction application. 4. Both the Courts, on proper appreciation of the documents on record, held that the plaintiff had a prima-facie case and balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. The Courts mainly relied on the 7/12 extracts which were produced by the plaintiffs on record to show that he was in possession of the suit land from 1991-92 till 2008- 2009. The Courts held that there was nothing on record to indicate that the defendant had ever applied to the Talathi or to the Tahsildar for entering his name in the possession column on the record of rights in respect of the suit land. For the first time, according to the Courts, such application was moved by the son of the defendant in the year 2009. The Courts also found that the defendant had not produced any document on record to show that he raised crops of cotton, soyabean and toor from the suit land or any document showing that the said crops were sold to any grain merchant or to any other agent. The Courts did not rely on the statement of the plaintiff before the Tahsildar, as pleaded by the defendant, as according to the Courts, the statement was not helpful in the matter, particularly when the land was shown to be in possession of the plaintiff even after execution of the exchange deed in the year 1988. 3 5. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact based on a proper appreciation of the documents on record. The findings do not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. The Trial Court, however, is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE RR..