1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7243 OF 2009 Dattu Kumbhar and others. .. petitioners Versus Manikchand Borana .. Respondent. --- Mr. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.P. Choukidar Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 5th December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 19th September, 2009, vide which the appeal filed by the present respondent challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Washi, dated 7th March, 2009, below Exhibit 5, in R.C.S. No. 525/2008, came to be allowed, thereby reversing the order of the learned trial court. 2 2] The plaintiff has filed a suit claiming for a declaration that he is owner of land admeasuring 4 Acres 37 R in Gat No. 1225 and for ther perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the present petitioners. It is the case of the defendants that they were in possession of an area admeasuring 91R in Gat No. 1225. However, the plaintiff had manipulated the record while the consolidation scheme was prepared and entered his name in so far as the entire Gat No. 1225 is concerned. 3] Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 for temporary injunction was filed by the respondent plaintiff. The same came to be rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff. The appeal is allowed and an order of injunction is passed against the present petitioners/defendants. 4] Smt. Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Appellate court has erred in allowing the appeal and passing an order of injunction against the petitioners. She submits that from the record it was clear that the petitioners were in possession of 91 R land in Gat No. 1225. She, therefore, submits that the appellate order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5] Shri Choukidar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits since the order passed by the learned trial court was passed on an 3 erroneous premise, the learned appellate court was totally justified in reversing the same. 6] No doubt, that the scope of interference in an appeal against order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the trial court is perverse or impossible, it would not be possible for the appellate court to reverse the finding and substitute the view of the trial court with its own view. However, in the present case, it could be seen that the claim of the plaintiff is based on the revenue entries recorded after the consolidation scheme was given effect to, in the year 1993. Prior to the said consolidation scheme, the old survey NO. 241 and 371(A), was in the name of the present petitioners, and 371(B) was in the name of the respondent plaintiff. However, when the consolidation scheme was given effect to, the new survey Number is 241 and in the said survey number, Gat No. 1225 is in the name of the present respondent/plaintiff right from 1993. The appellate court, therefore, found that since prima facie, revenue entries were in the name of the respondent/plaintiff right from 1993 and no steps were taken by the petitioners for a long period to change the consolidation scheme, the prima facie case was in favour of the plaintiff. It is further to be noted that in a parallel proceeding, though an order challenging the consolidation scheme was passed in favour of the petitioners by the Superintendent of Land Records, the same was further challenged before the Deputy Director of Land Records and the Deputy Director of Land Records vide order dated 31st December, 2008, has reversed the order of the Supdt. Of Land Records, by 4 allowing the appeal of the present respondent. The appeal is basically allowed on the ground that the dispute between the parties i.e. R.C.S. No. 525/2008 is pending before the civil court and, therefore, it will not be appropriate for the revenue authorities to pass any orders. However, it can be seen that in the said order itself, the DILR has referred to the measurement plan of Taluka Inspector of Land Records dated 11/7/2002 wherein it has been found that Gat No. 1225 was in possession of the present respondent/plaintiff. 7] In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the finding of the trial court, which was based on conjectures and surmises. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed, with no orders as to costs. However, it is made clear that the observations made by the learned trial court, appellate court and this court would not be taken into consideration by the trial court, at the stage of the trial. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-