1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2010 Shri Baliram Chhattersingh Khandewale )..Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ­­­­ Mr. S. M. Samant for the appellant. Mr.s.V. S. Mhaispurkar AGP for the respondent. ­­­­ Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 22nd February, 2010 PC FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2010 1 Advocate for the appellant states that since he has been held to be in possession by the impugned judgment and order, he will not press this appeal if it is directed that his possession will not be disturbed except by due process of law. On perusing the record it is found that the appellant has been held to be in possession of the suit land. His plea of adverse possession has been rejected since there are many other persons residing in the suit property and those persons were not joined as parties to the suit. In the circumstances, the finding relating to adverse possession cannot be said to be bad in law. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with a direction that if the respondent wants to dis­possess the appellant, they may do so strictly by following due process of law. 2 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2010 As the main appeal is dismissed, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3