1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1060 OF 2009 Raghunath Bhaguji Thitme ....Petitioner. Versus Karbhari Deshrath Thitme & ors. ....Respondents. Shri. N.J. Pahune-Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 4 & 6 to 14 & 16,17,19. Shri. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 20. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28th June 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge – 1, Sangamner, allowing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 20/2007 filed by the defendants, by setting aside the order of injunction dated 20.3.2007, passed below Exh. 5 by the Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 86/2006. By this order, the application filed by the original plaintiff under Order 39, Rule (1) (2) has been rejected. 2. The Trial Court has passed an order, restraining the 2 respondents/defendants temporarily from using the new road till the decision of the suit. The Appellate Court in appeal preferred by the defendants, has recorded a finding that the matter is already concluded by the decision of the Tahsildar acting under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act and in the appeal preferred against the said order, a finding is recorded that the defendants have no alternate way, as contended by the plaintiff. It has further recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to make out the prima facie case. With these findings, the appeal has been allowed by setting aside the order of injunction passed by the Trial Court. 3. After going through the orders passed by the Courts below and after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the view that the findings on facts recorded by the Appellate Court needs no interference, as it is based upon the earlier order passed in the proceedings taken out by the defendants under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp1060.09