1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1352 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1352 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri S.V.Natu for Petitioner, Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar with Advocate Shri Jaju for Respondent No.1. 2. The objection raised by petitioner/ obstructionist is rejected by a judgment on 26th November, 2010 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shevgaon. Petitioners have then filed Regular Civil Appeal No.394 of 2010 and in it sought stay of further execution of judgment and decree. That has been rejected by District Judge-3 on 5th February, 2011. 3. Advocate Mr. Natu contends that petitioners are found in possession by Bailiff who had gone to take possession and they are in possession since almost about 35 years. He contends that petitioners are born in very same property and hence they have perfected their title to the said property by 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1352 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. adverse possession. In this situation, till the facts are looked into by Appellate Court, their possession ought to have been protected. 4. Shri Katneshwarkar invites attention to consideration by trial Court to point out that the land is found to be not used for agricultural purpose, petitioners are found residing elsewhere and their cross examination demonstrates absence of knowledge of basic facts to show their possession. He, in addition, points out that the dispute is going on with Judgment Debtor since 1962 and in 1969 suit came to be filed. The decree for his eviction has been maintained right up to Honourable Apex Court and, thereafter, for the first time the objection came to be filed by present petitioners in the month of October, 2008. He invites attention to that objection also to urge that it is very vague and does not give necessary details. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1352 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 5. I have perused the judgment delivered by trial Court as also objection raised by petitioners before executing Court. Prima facie, I do not see anything wrong with the application of mind by executing Court. The Appellate Court has also gone into the controversy at requisite length while deciding application for stay and has rejected it. As there is no jurisdictional error or perversity I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. The possession of petitioner can be restored if ultimately Regular Civil Appeal No.394 of 2010 filed by him is allowed. Only to see that suit property remains available in that contingency, present Respondent No.1 is restrained from creating any third party interest or from altering nature of suit property till the appeal is finally decided by the Appellate Court. 6. Hearing of appeal is expedited and 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1352 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Appellate Court is directed to attempt to decide the appeal at the earliest. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:23/02/2011. ans/1352