1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5647 OF 2006 Bhaurao Kisan Salam & ors. v. Bhujangrao Krushnaji Salam & ors. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders Mr.S.H. Quazi Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Joshi Advocate holding for Mr.Mardikar for Re.1. Mr.J.B.Jaiswal, A.G.P., for Res. 2 to 4. .... CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 26th JULY, 2007. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Mr.Qazi, learned counsel, vehemently argued that the petitioners are admittedly landlords in respect of the suit field property and they were put in possession by Elgar Samiti. He submits that the petitioners were in actual possession of the suit field and the appellate court was not justified in disturbing their possession. He therefore prayed that petitioners' possession should be protected by this Court by setting at naught 2 the order passed by the appellate Court. 3. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.1, opposing the submissions made by Mr.Qazi, submitted that respondent no.1 is tenant right from 1962 over the suit field and had produced the records before the Courts below to prove his case and the appellate court found a prima facie case in his favour. In view of this, he submits that respondent no.1 has legal right to be in possession of the suit field and he is in possession of the suit field and his possession cannot be disturbed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order passed by the appellate court, I find that the appellate court has adhered to the three requirements for grant of temporary injunction. The appellate court has found that prima facie case is made out by respondent no.1 because he is tenant under the the Bombay Tenancy and 3 Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act and has been in possession since 1962. It is seen that even if the petitioners were put in possession by the Elgar Samiti that would be of no consequence. In view of the prima facie case, the appellate Court issued injunction against respondent no.1 and during the pendency of the matter allowed him to continue to be in possession. I do not find that there is any error in the finding recorded by the appellate court. On the contrary, I find that prima facie case being in favour of respondent no.1, the appellate court has rightly exercised appellate power. Thre is no substance in the petition. Writ petition dismissed. No costs. JUDGE /TA/