: 1 : 5293-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5293 OF 2011 Smt. Anandibai Vilas Mane .. Petitioner v/s. Smt. Akkatai Shripati Khade .. Respondent ......... Ms. Shilpa R. Mangale for the petitioner Mr. Shashank Mangle for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 14th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur before whom the application for restoration of the possession was filed by the respondent came to be granted by order dated 13th June, 2009 in R.C. Suit No.273 of 2008. Against that order, Civil Misc. Appeal was filed being Civil Misc. Appeal No. 113 of 2009. Same is dismissed by order dated 28th July, 2009. : 2 : 5293-11-wp=.sxw 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner wanted to rely upon a document purported to have been executed on 21st March, 2009 by which the petitioner is said to have repaid to the respondent a sum of Rs. 18,000/- and that is how the respondent is said to have returned the possession to the petitioner. As against this, in the written statement filed by the petitioner, it is a clear admission that out of mercy, the premises were given to the respondent for occupation. 3. The Court below have considered as to whether document dated 21st March, 2009 could have come into existence and have arrived at a conclusion that the said document is fabricated, of course, prima-facie by going through the stand of the respondent that her thumb impression were obtained under coercion. 4. On consideration of the record, the view taken by the Court below is right. If the petitioner claims that respondent was inducted in the suit premises out of mercy, there is no question of introducing this story of payment Rs.14,000/- and surrender of the premises. The document dated 21st March, 2009 is found to be forged, of course, prima-facie. The suit is : 3 : 5293-11-wp=.sxw still pending. Mandatory order is already passed by the learned trial Judge and the said order is pending execution as execution application is filed. In my view, both the Courts below have taken a correct view of the matter and no interference is required in the impugned order. It will be open for the present petitioner defendant to raise all contentions as regards the merits of the suit. Petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs. It is clarified that observations made in this order will be used by any of the parties in the trial Court at the time of trial. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)