1 WP 2948/2011 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2948 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Amit Borkar i/b Mr. V.V. Purwant for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. Shah for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 3RD AUGUST 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (original defendant). 2. The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for an injunction restraining the petitioner from disturbing his possession over the suit land. In the suit, the respondent made 2 WP 2948/2011 an application for interim injunction to be operative during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the application. However, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and restrained the petitioner from disturbing the possession of the respondent by its order dated 28th January 2011. That order is impugned in the present petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent agreed to enter into an agreement for sale with him and in pursuance of the said agreement had put the petitioner in possession. Copy of the agreement for sale was produced on record. The agreement shows that the possession of the suit land was to be handed over to the petitioner at the time of the conveyance and not earlier. The agreement for sale therefore is not a proof of possession of the petitioner. 3 WP 2948/2011 The petitioner tried to rely upon a panchanama dated 2nd March 2009. The panchanama would only prove what were the crops in the suit land but would not prove who is in possession of the suit land. 4. Counsel for the petitioner then sought to rely upon a report made by the Circle Officer to the Tahsildar on 5th March 2009 and submitted that the report clearly discloses that the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. The report is not based upon any revenue records. Revenue records show that the respondent is in possession of the suit land. Report of the Circle Officer, which is not based on the revenue records, has little evidentiary value. 5. The lower appellate Court, which is a final court of facts, has recorded a 4 WP 2948/2011 finding of fact that the respondent is in possession of the suit land. The finding is based upon appreciation of evidence and in the absence of any perversity cannot be interfered with in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)