1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5673 of 2011 Sarita D. Bhutani Vs. Ashok D.Deepani and others. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.A. Abhyankar, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 18 th November, 2011. Heard Shri Abhyankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the courts have concurrently held that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also not in favour of the plaintiff. Though the order of the trial court is somewhat cryptic, the first appellate court rightly adverted its mind to the material on record to hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of injunction. The first appellate court held that the plaintiff had not prima facie satisfactorily proved that the defendants were in fact making the alleged construction on the nazul land, on the basis of the documents on record as the land mentioned in the documents and the land on which the defendants were constructing, was not properly identifiable. The court also observed that though the petitioner had joined Municipal Council as a party in the previous suit filed by the petitioner against the respondents, challenging the illegal construction by the respondents, the petitioner 2 had, for reasons best known to the petitioner, failed to join the Municipal Council as a party in the present suit. The first appellate court has elaborately considered the material on record to hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunction sought by him. In fact, one of the documents on which the petitioner relies clearly shows that the defendants were having a shop on the said property for the past 50 years. There is no reason for this court to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 265 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is not relevant for deciding the issue involved in this case. Similarly, the judgment reported in 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 624 is also not beneficial to the case of the petitioner as it merely lays down that a party has a right to file a civil suit challenging the invasion of his right to light, air and privacy etc. The court in this case had not denied the relief to the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that the civil suit was not tenable as the petitioner was challenging his right to light, air, privacy etc. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.