1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6653 OF 2009 The Gram Panchayat, Pimpalgaon (Renukai) .. petitioners Versus Renukadevi Shikshan Sanstha and others. Respondents. --- Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 1st December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jalna,dated 30th January, 2009 in R.C.S. No. 25/2009, thereby granting injunction in favour of the respondent No.1 and the order passed by the learned District Judge, Jalna, dated 2nd September, 2009, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners. 2] Shri Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts have erred in granting injunction inasmuch as, the respondent No. 1 has encroached upon the land of the Gram Panchayat and made unauthorized construction thereon. He further submits that even the notice 2 which is issued by the present petitioners is not challenged in the said suit and, therefore, injunction ought not to have been granted. 3] Shri Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. 4] The scope for interference in the concurrent findings of fact is very limited. Unless the findings are found to be perverse, it will not be possible for the court to interfere with the same. The learned trial court as well as the appellate court have considered the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and after finding the 3 tests to be in favour of the respondent No.1, have granted injunction. It is further to be noted that the limited relief which is granted by the court below is restraining the Gram Panchayat from demolishing the building constructed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, wherein, a college is being run for the students. As such, even on equities, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction exercised by both the courts below is exercised in a perverse manner. In the result, writ petition is rejected. It is,however, made clear that the learned trial court would not be influenced by the observations made by the trial court and appellate court at the stage of grant of temporary injunction, at the stage of trial of the suit. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 3