1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5379 OF 2008 Pandurang Awadaji Sable and others ...Petitioners Versus Sharad Awadaji Sable and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioners Mr. P.R. Patil, advocate for respondent No.1 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed in Misc. Civil appeal No. 11 of 2006 and 108 of 2006, dated 4.7.2008 by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge -1, Jalgaon and the judgment and order passed below Exh.6 in R.C.S. No. 101 of 2005 dated 4.1.2006 and the order passed below Exh.6 in R.C.S. No. 119 of 2006 by the learned C.J.J.D. Chalisgaon dated 17.11.2006. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has invited my attention to the findings recorded by the appellate court and submitted that the no injunction can be clamped against the co-owner though 2 the appellate Court has observed in para 14 that no injunction can be granted against the co-owner. However, relief of injunction is refused to the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that the test of entries in 7x12 extract which is applied in the case of petitioner should have been applied in the case of the respondent. Learned counsel has invited my attention to page 55 i.e. 7x12 extract in support of the findings recorded by the court below that the name of the petitioner is not appearing in the 7x12 extract and therefore, the said finding is perverse. In fact the name of the petitioner appears in the 7x12 extract from 1996 and earlier, the name of the father of the petitioners was appearing in the 7x12 extract. Learned counsel invited my attention to the pleadings in the petition and grounds therein and has submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supported the judgment and order impugned in this petition and has submitted that the petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 4 After hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and on perusal of the contents in para 14 of the impugned judgment, I am of the considered view that both the courts below on facts, have reached to the conclusion that the petitioners' names are not corrected in 7x12 extract pertaining to 1H 3 and 51 R land bearing survey No.126. So far as that part of the findings is concerned, both the courts held against the petitioners. That apart, the courts have held that the petitioners are not in possession of the land and the respondents are in possession. It is not possible for this Court to enter into the exercise of appreciation of evidence though learned counsel invited my attention to page 55 i.e. 7x12 extract. Both the courts concurrently held that the petitioners names are not appearing in the 7x12 extract pertaining to the land admeasuring 1H 51 Are bearing survey No.126. That part, the relief which was claimed by the petitioners is discretionary relief. It is for the concerned court to grant relief on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the respective parties. Both the courts held against the petitioners. No case is made out for interference. Writ petition is dismissed. 5 Since the parties litigating are real brothers, it is expected that the suits, filed by the petitioners as well as by the respondents, to be heard and finally decided within six months from today. The parties to extend full co-operation to the trial court in disposing of the suits. *****