1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6816 of 2009 Shri Popat Baburao Choughule & ors. ... Petitioners versus Shri Ramchandra Sadashiv Choughule @ Bhosale & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. S.R.Ganbavle for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 25th June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd April 2009 passed by District Judge-12, Pune in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.125 of 2009 confirming the order of dismissal of the application of interim injunction passed by the trial court in Suit no. 1838 of 2007. 3. The trial court as well as appellate court has recorded a finding of fact that petitioners-plaintiffs had failed to prove prima facie that they 2 were in possession of the suit property. The finding of fact being a possible finding of fact recorded in an interlocutory proceedings, in the absence of any perversity therein, cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 3. Even otherwise, I am satisfied that the prima facie finding about possession is proper. The present suit relates to Survey No.125/1 admeasuring 4.25 Hectares. Sadashiv, father of respondent no.1 (defendant in the present suit) had filed a suit against Baburao Chaugule, (father of the plaintiffs) for injunction against disturbing his possession in respect of Survey No.251 as well as Survey No.125/1. That suit was decreed. The Court granted injunction restraining the petitioners’ father disturbing the possession of the father of the respondents other Survey No.125/1. Thus, in the previous litigation, possession of Survey No.125/1 (which is the present suit land) was held to be that of the father of the respondents. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)