1 CA No.12218/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12218/2010 (RAVINDRA SAJJANRAO NIKAM AND ANR V/S SHESHRAO NAMDEO ZIMMAN AND ORS ) In AO/100/2008 -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.N.B.Narwade, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. Amol Gandhi, Adv., for R.No.1 Shri Ujwal Patil, Adv., for R.Nos.2, 3 & 4. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:15-12-2010 1. Copy of affidavit-in-reply received by Mr.Narwade, Counsel. 2. Heard. I do not see any situation to modify the order dt.21st Jan.,2010, recorded in Appeal From Order No.100 of 2008 whereby Appeal From Order is allowed and injunction was clamped against Ravindra Sajjanrao Nikam and another. Mr.Narwade has tendered photographs to illustrate that, 2 CA No.12218/2010 indeed, cotton seed crop is standing in the field and the bullocks nearby the house belongs to the applicants. As against this, learned Counsel for the Original appellant informs that even the 7/12 extract for the latest year issued on 4.12.2010 illustrated possession of the appellant. The room belongs to appellant and he is in possession. That apart, seven reports are tendered/filed to the Police against the illegal activities of the applicant and there had been infraction of law and order, and situation of flexing muscles and man-handling to the appellant, including sustaining head injury. 3. Even if passingly, Mr.Narwade has stated that he was not heard at the time of hearing, however, by that itself, will not shake the merits in the Appeal From Order as the order, is on evaluation 3 CA No.12218/2010 of the documents and the material before the Court, transacting requisite details. The expeditious hearing of the suit will also meet the purpose of both the parties. 4. At this stage, there is no need to travel to the so called amenable status of the sale deed in favour of the present applicants. Modification has the impulse of reviewing the order which again, by virtue of provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is inhibited for want of such projection of case. Application dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/12218-10ca