jpc 1 wp9190-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9190 OF 2011 Aburao Tatyava Khunte ... Petitioner Versus Shankar Mahadeo Mandhare and others ... Respondents Mr. Arun H. Palekar for the petitioner CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 13th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. There is concurrent finding against the petitioner as regards entitlement of the petitioner to the relief of temporary injunction of the Courts below. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who had filed Regular Civil Sut No. 23 of 2010 for cancellation of the document dated 27h April, 1983 and for injunction, restraining the defendants form disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner in respect of the suit land admeasuring 81 Ares out of Gat No. 386. The said suit was field by the petitioner/plaintiff on the apprehension that on the basis of the document dated 27th April, 1987, the defendants would disturb his possession. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction which has been rejected by the trial Court by its order dated 16th September, 2010. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff jpc 2 wp9190-11.sxw filed an appeal before the the First Appellate court being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 182 of 2010 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 18th April, 2011. 2. As can be seen from reading of the orders passed by both the Courts below, both the Courts have concurrently, at the prima facie stage, not accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the document in question was mortgage and not a sale deed. Both the Courts below, on the basis of Rasta Case No. 9 of 2005 which was before the Tahsildar concerned and the entries in the 7/12 extracts, recorded a finding that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. Both the Courts below have held that the conduct of the plaintiff of complaining that he has been cheated by the defendants, that too after a period of 20 years of the said alleged incident, is unusual. The trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff has made out no case for the grant of the discretionary relief. 3. Having considered the orders passed by the both the Courts below, in my view, no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)