1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7201 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. V.D.Salunke,Advocate, for Petitioner ........................... [ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 24/11/2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of facts, vide which the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by an order passed by the Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Ausa dated 18/3/2009 in R.C.S. No. 731 of 2008 and the order passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge – 2, Latur dated 29/9/2009, vide which the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 26 of 2009 filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed. 2. Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though both the Courts below have 2 come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not owner and also in possession, the injunction has been refused. 3. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Courts have observed that the petitioner has failed to prove the prima facie case, in as much as the sale deed on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the land, is not valid in law in view of there being no permission U/s 50/B of the Hyderabad (Tenancy & Agricultural) Lands Act, 1950. The Courts have also come to the conclusion that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from the Court and, therefore, they are not entitled to the equitable relief. 4. No perversity is found in the concurrent findings of the fact to warrant interference. Hence, rejected. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP7201.09