1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.994 OF 2009 M/s N.K. Gade and others. Petitioners. V e r s u s Raosaheb s/o Tabaji Padwal and others. Respondents. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.V. Barde, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI J : DATE : 2nd JULY, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Civil Judge S.D., Sangamner vide order dated 26.03.2008 thereby allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by the respondent and order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge-1, Sangamner dated 30.07.2008 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners. 2. Shri Bajaj, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of plaint itself it would reveal that the plaintiff has himself admitted that he had given 20 Ares of land in possession of the defendant. He submits that in view of such an admission, there was no reason for grant of injunction by the learned trial court. He submits that same has also not been taken into consideration by the Appellate Court. 3. The learned Trial Court has found that the plaintiff had title over land in question. It has further been found that the claim of the defendant was on the so called document purported to be 2 agreement of sale. It has been found that in the said agreement there was a stipulation of handing over of possession and as such, the said document was compulsorily registrable by paying the requisite stamp duty. In that view of the matter, the learned trial court has found reliance on the said document was not proper. The learned trial court has also found that the tests of balance of primafacie case , balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also in favour of the plaintiff in as much as if the injunction would not be granted the defendant shall enter upon the land of the plaintiff and thereby causing an irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Said findings of fact has been affirmed by the Appellate Court. 4. In the concurrent findings of fact, this Court would be permitted to interfere only if it is found that the view taken by the court below is perverse. It cannot be said that the view taken by the courts below is an impossible view. Only because this Court finds that other view to be a more probable view it is not permissible for this court to upset finding of fact. In that view of the matter no case is made out. In any case an order of injunction is operating from March, 2008 i.e almost for a period of one year and 4 months. Hence, no interference is warranted in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp994.09.odt