1 wp10702.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10702 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. N.L. Jadhav for petitioner and Advocate Mr. S.V. Natu for respondent. 2. Challenge by petitioner-defendant is to reversing judgment delivered by District Judge-2, Ambajogai on 5th October, 2010 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2008. 3. Advocate Mr Jadhav points out that the trial Court after recording that boundaries in alleged sale deed obtained by the respondent, do not tally with the spot, had refused to grant interim relief. He pointed out that the petitioner-defendant obtained the land from Gram Panchayat and is it using for tying the cattle. 4. He invited attention to the discussions by the trial 2 wp10702.10 Court as well as Appellate Court. According to him, the appellate Court has erroneously found that maps have not been properly looked into by the trial Court. 5. Advocate Mr. Natu for respondent states that the appellate Court has expressly relied upon the maps and noted that inference of difference in boundaries, reached by trial Court, is perverse. He states that as the appellate Court has considered the material available on record and its findings are possible findings, this Court should not interfere in the writ jurisdiction. He has also stated that the respondent-plaintiff is using the said land for tying his cattle. 6. After hearing respective counsel, it has become apparent that maps produced by the parties are looked into by appellate Court as well as trial Court. Trial Court has found that the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed of the respondent do not tally with spot. The appellate Court in para no.12 of the judgment has applied its mind in that respect and noted that the trial Court was misled and dotted line adjacent to survey no. 97 can not be presumed to be road of Gram Panchayat. For that purpose it has also relied upon the map of village Nagapur to note that the map does not show such road adjacent to gut no. 313. This findings in not even stated to be perverse. 3 wp10702.10 7. Consideration by appellate Court appears to be in more details and also proper. In any case, after considering both maps, a possible view has been taken by it after noticing view taken by trial Court. I therefore do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. 8. However, as both the parties have claimed that they are using the said land for tying the cattle, the parties are directed not to create any third party interest in the suit property and not to change its nature to the prejudice of either side. This interim direction shall operate during the pendency of the Civil Suit. 9. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 21.01.2011 gas/wp10702.10