1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 730 /2009 (Nagorao Shivram Mankar VERSUS Haridas Ramdas Gajbhe & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.D. Dongre, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Randive, counsel for the R-1 & 2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JUNE 23, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 21.10.2008 passed by the District Judge-4, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.417/2007, the injunction order granted by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs was modified and the appeal was partly allowed. The first appellate Court restrained the respondents from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the portion of land admeasuring 3 Feet from the backside walls of their houses towards the eastern side till the disposal of the suit. The defendants/respondents were also restrained from making any sort of construction over the portion of land admeasuring 3 Feet from the backside walls of their houses towards the eastern side till the disposal of the suit. 2 I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the impugned order as also the order passed by the trial Court on 21.11.2007 granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that the defendants had no right to demarcate the boundaries on the disputed site and make construction of Otta for installation of idol of Lord Ganesha on the disputed plot. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had a right of ingress and egress from the disputed land and the plaintiffs apprehended that the defendants would dispossess the plaintiffs by making the said construction. The trial Court granted the injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, however, did not consider some of the relevant documents on record and also discarded the consent letter, which was signed by the petitioners on the plea of the plaintiffs that the defendants had obtained the signature and thumb impression of the plaintiffs on the blank papers. The first appellate Court reappreciated material on record to hold that the trial Court was not justified in accepting the explanation of the petitioners that the thumb impression and the signature was obtained on a blank paper. 3 The first appellate Court held that the trial Court had not properly considered the consent letter, which clearly mentioned about the house of the plaintiff and about keeping of 3 Feet margin from the wall of their house. The first appellate Court also relied on the resolution dated 28.10.2006, which refers to the construction of Otta (Stage) on the disputed land. There was also a reference in the resolution that the Otta was to be constructed by keeping 3 Feet margin from the wall of the plaintiff no.2’s house. Apart from the aforesaid two documents, the other documents were also considered by the first appellate Court to modify the order passed by the trial Court. The order passed by the first appellate Court on 21.10.2008 does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE