1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5918 of 2010 1. Shri Baburao s/o Namdeo Solanke, Age – Adult, Occupation – Agriculturist. 2. Shri Santosh s/o Baburao Solanke, Age – Adult, Occupation – Agriculturist. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the residents of village Sajanpuri, Tah. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana. ... Petitioners Versus Shri Gopal s/o Babulal Agrawal, Age – Adult, Occupation – Business, R/o Shivalaya Vihar, Near Farshi, Khamgaon, Tah. Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhana. ... Respondent Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R.K. Deshpande, J. DATED : 21st September, 2011 Oral Order : 1. The respondent is the original plaintiff and has filed Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2006 for grant of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from disturbing his possession over the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff claimed the ownership of the suit 2 property on the basis of the sale-deed dated 6-8-1982, which contains a recital about handing over of the possession by the petitioners/defendants. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit property till the disposal of the suit. 2. Both the Courts below have found that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale-deed and hence the injunction granted by the Trial Court on 5-12-2006 has been confirmed in appeal on 21-8-2010. The only dispute raised by Shri Bhuibhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants, is that the panchanama dated 7-11-2005 prepared by the Talathi showing that appellant No.1 is in possession of the suit property, has been ignored by the Appellate Court while recording the findings. No doubt, there is no specific reference to the panchanama in the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court, but the Trial Court has considered it while recording the findings. The Appellate Court has recorded the reasons and has concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court suffers from non- application of mind to the documents placed on record. 3. Both the Courts have found that the respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The finding is based upon prima facie assessment of the case found on the basis of the material available on record. Even if panchanama is taken into consideration, it will at the 3 most show a possible view of the matter. The petitioners/defendants have not filed any suit for declaration that the sale-deed dated 6-8-2002 was a money-lending transaction. In view of this, no fault can be found with the orders passed by the Courts below. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4. Shri Bhuibhar, the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants, prays that the status quo, which has been granted by this Court, be continued for a further period of four weeks. In view of the fact that the interim order of status quo was operating, the same is continued for a further period of four weeks from today; after expiry of which, it shall stand automatically vacated. Judge. Pdl.