1 wp11529.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11529 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. G.M. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent. 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Jadhav for petitioner and Mr. Katneshwarkar for respondent. In a suit filed by the respondent, the trial Court found him not in possession and therefore, refused temporary injunction. In his Miscellaneous Civil Appeal, the Appellate Court granted same. 2. Mr. Jadhav for petitioner contends that the Appellate Court has given more importance to legal title of the subject matter than to possession. According to him, title can be ascertained later on and factual physical possession was an important aspect, which only ought to have been considered by the Appellate Court. 3. Mr. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent on the other hand supports the impugned order of the 2 wp11529.10 Appellate Court. He points out that the Appellate Court has also relied upon the 7/12 extract to note that the respondent-plaintiff is in possession. 4. After hearing respective counsel, it transpired that one Rajaram Khandare was the original owner and in 2003 the said person is alleged to have entered into an agreement for sale with present petitioner. The petitioner claims to be in possession because of that agreement since 2003. It is not in dispute that said Rajaram then sold the subject property to one Sheshrao Kadam and said Sheshrao Kadam then sold it to present respondent(plaintiff). 5. Respondent-plaintiff has purchased the property in the year 2009 and from 2009, his name has been mutated in revenue records. The name of the petitioner has not been appearing as person in cultivation since 2003 onwards till today. 6. I therefore find that the Appellate Court has considered the relevant material and has reversed the order of the Trial Court. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 7. However, considering the claim of the petitioner- plaintiff, the proceedings in Civil Court is expedited and the trial Court shall attempt to decide the said Civil Suit as 3 wp11529.10 early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. 8. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.02.2011 gas/wp11529.10