1 WP 8718.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8718 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. K.T.Shirurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. ......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/11/2011. PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner is the original defendant. The present respondent has filed Suit for injunction. Along with the Suit, an application for temporary injunction is also filed. The trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction.. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed Appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Shirurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below have given a finding against the 2 WP 8718.2011 record. The revenue record is in the name of the present petitioner. Wrongly the name was mutated in the name of defendant no. 5. The same was corrected by the authority in the year 2006 and the name of the present petitioner is also effected. After taking the necessary inspection, it has been found that the present petitioner is in possession of the property. All these aspects have not been considered by the Court, resulting in the erroneous Judgment. The learned counsel further contends that the Suit filed by the petitioner for partition and separate possession is also pending. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff is not entitled for the injunction as prayed. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the documents and the impugned order. 4. The Courts have observed that defendant no. 5 by registered sale deed has sold the suit property to the plaintiff. The suit property stood in the name of defendant no. 5 prior to the execution of the sale deed and after the sale, the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the relevant revenue record as owner and possessor. The Courts have also observed that the present petitioners, who are defendant nos. 1to 3 in the present Suit have also file R.C.S. No. 253 of 2002 against the plaintiff herein and other defendants for partition and separate 3 WP 8718.2011 possession. In the said Suit, the plaintiffs therein i.e. the present petitioners have specifically contended that the present suit property be allotted to the defendant no. 4 and not to themselves. 5. In view of the above, the Courts have arrived at a plausible finding. 6. In light of the above, no interference is called for in the Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 8718.2011