( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4378 OF 2008 Mirza Yusuf Baig Mirza Abdul Ghane Baig Jamadar, through his Power of Attorney Holder Sharif Abbas Patel Abbas Patel PETITIONER VERSUS Venkat Devidas Amrutsagar (Lad) RESPONDENT ..... Mr. Amit Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 13th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is original defendant No. 1. He challenges concurrent judgement and orders rendered by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court on application for temporary injunction filed in suit (R.C.S. No. 33/2007) and Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10/2007, ( 2 ) respectively. 3. The case of the respondent is that his father was in possession of land in question since 1952-53 uptill his demise on 01-08-2006. Thereafter, he continued to remain in possession. His father was declared protected tenant in respect of 6 acres 4 gunthas land out of the land in question i.e. Survey No. 48 which admeasures 22 acres 33 gunthas. His father, however, continued to remain in possession in respect of the remaining part of the land on basis of an agreement of sale executed in his favour in 1960. Both the Courts held that prima facie case is made out by the respondent and, therefore, the interim injunction was granted in his favour. Mr. Deshpande would submit that deceased Abdul Alisab could not have executed the agreement of sale on 17-07-1960 because he was not alive at that time. He would submit that in view of terms of compromise in another suit (R.C.S. No. 3728/2003), death of said Abdul Alisab occurred on 07-08-1958, and therefore, it ought to have been held that the agreement of sale dated 17-07-1960 is fabricated and false ( 3 ) document. He contended that there was dispute regarding possession and, therefore, since 2002-03, the cultivation column is kept blank in 7/12 record and thus, possession of the plaintiff could not be inferred. 4. It appears from the observations in both the judgements that name of the plaintiff’s father was recorded in the cultivation column of the 7/12 record since 1958 till 2002. The subsequent changes in the cultivation column would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. There are disputed questions of fact involved in the petition and the judgements of both the Courts are concurrent. There appears no perversity as such. The question regarding actual date of death of Alisab is subject matter of final adjudication after the parties would lead the evidence and so also the question of genuineness or otherwise of the agreement of sale will be decided after the full-fledged trial. Considering these aspects, I am inclined to hold that the petition is without much substance and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court need not be exercised. ( 4 ) 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed with direction that the main suit (R.C.S. No. 33/2007) be expedited for final hearing and shall be disposed of within period of nine (9) months as far as possible. 6. The observations made in this order and also in the impugned orders of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court shall not be considered while deciding the suit finally. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP4378-08