1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2010. Sau. Radhabai Bhikaji Thakre and another. -: VERSUS :- Dinkar Sadashiv Thakre. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 25, 2010. Heard Shri V.G. Bhambhurkar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri S.V.. Khondalay, learned Counsel for respondent. This Court issued notice for final disposal on 25.08.2010 and directed maintenance of status quo. Accordingly, I have heard learned Counsel for parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith and matter is finally heard by consent of parties. In a suit for declaration and title, the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 18.07.2009 found the present petitioners/defendants in possession and therefore, 2 rejected the temporary injunction to respondent. In Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1[r] of the Civil Procedure Code, the District Judge-I, Khamgaon vide judgment dated 03.05.2010 reversed that order by noticing that paragraph no.19 in written statement which was jointly filed by the plaintiff, his mother and one respondent Bhikaji in a suit for partition, the possession disclosed could not have been correct as Will comes into operation only after the death of the testator and the testator Jaywantibai was alive at that time. According to Shri Bhambhurkar, learned Counsel the other material produced has not been looked into and interpretation in paragraph no.19 of the written statement by the appellant court in paragraph no.11 of the impugned judgment is not proper. Shri Khondalay, learned Counsel has invited attention to the 7/12 extracts of the suit land filed before this Court as Annexure-R1 and R2 to urge that those 7/12 extracts show the possession of respondent. However, he could not point out the consideration of those 7/12 extracts by the Trial Court. The 7/12 extracts produced before this Court are dated 30.09.2010 i.e. long after the impugned judgment by the Court below. 3 The Trial Court has looked into the documents like the bills in respect of purchase of agricultural goods, in respect of purchase of fertilizers for the period from 2004 onwards, produced by the present petitioners and on the strength of that material and other documents it has found that the petitioners are in possession. The impugned judgment delivered by the District Judge-I, Khamgaon does not consider all those documents. Only because of the alleged paragraph no.19 in the written statement filed by Jaywantibai and inference drawn therefrom in paragraph no.11 of the impugned judgment, the appellate Court has reversed the order of the Trial Court. The impugned judgment therefore shows total non application of mind in as much as the facts relevant have not been looked into. The said judgment dated 03.05.2010 is therefore quashed and set aside. The order passed below Exh.6 in Regular Civil Suit No. 64/2009 on 18.07.2009 by the 3rd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khamgaon is restored. However, in this situation the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 64/2009 are expedited and the Court below shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. 4 Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.