IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1347/2011 ANANDA MAROTI JAWALKAR ..VS.. CHANDRABHAN JAWALKAR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Vyas, advocate for petitioner Shri Quazi, advocate for respondent CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 31, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Both the courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff/ respondent was in possession of the suit property and was entitled to grant of injunction as he had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the courts had not considered the report of the Talathi, which showed that the petitioner was in possession of the property, is liable to be rejected, as the report was duly considered by the appellate court in para 22 and 23 of the judgment before dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Since the findings recorded by both the courts are based on a proper appreciation of the documents on record, they do not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP