1 wp 7998.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7998 OF 2011 Hanmantrao Manikrao Patil and anr. .. Petitioner Versus Nagabai Manikrao Patil Died through L.Rs. Hanmabai Hanmantrao Patil and others .. Respondents Shri U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner are the original defendants. The present respondent No. 1 filed a suit for simplicitor injunction. The petitioners resisted the said suit by filing written statement. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for framing an issue of tenancy and referring the said issue to the Tenancy Court. Said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby present petition is filed. 2 wp 7998.11 2. Shri Bilolikar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners have specifically raised this ground in the written statement and specific averment was made that the petitioners were inducted as tenant on Gudi Padwa of the year 1996. In view of these averments the issue of tenancy was necessary to be framed and the same can only be decided by the Tenancy Court. The Court has failed to take into consideration this aspect. The learned counsel contends that the Trial Court was swayed more by the alleged overwriting in the application Exhibit 91. The same has nothing to do with the point in issue. According to the learned counsel, the Court should have taken into consideration the pleadings in the written statement. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the pleadings, application and order. The suit is for simplicitor injunction. In a suit for simplicitor injunction only factum of possession is relevant. It is for the party to prove the actual physical possession. In such a case, it would not be necessary for the Court to frame the said issue of tenancy and decide it. The Trial Court has relied on the judgment of this Court in a case of Smt. Shalan Nivruti Pawar Vs. Balu Maruti Pawar reported in 1990 TLD (Mah) 306. In view of 3 wp 7998.11 this proposition I need not dilate on the other aspects of the matter. 4. In the light of the above, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11