1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4924 OF 2009 Shri.Sitaram Namdeo Gaikwad ..Petitioner -versus Mrs.Changunabai Baban Thakur & ors Respondents Shri S.D.Thokade, advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR J (Vacation Judge) DATED: 20th May, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard Shri. Thokade, learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, original plaintiff challenges the judgment and order dated March 3l, 2009 passed by the 2 learned District Judge-3, Kalyan in Misc Civil Appeal No.108 of 2008 as also the judgment and order dated November 5, 2008, below exh.5 in R.C.S. No.24l of 2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division. By the judgment and order dated November 5, 2008, the learned Trial Judge partly allowed the Application taken out by the petitioner at Exh 5 and restrained the defendant Nos l to l2 from disturbing peaceful possession of the petitioner, in respect of two shops and one garage adjacent to the suit land till disposal of the suit. 2. Since the injunction was issued only in respect of two shops and one garage and not in respect of entire suit land, the petitioner preferred Misc Civil Appeal No.l08 of 2008. The learned District Judge-3, by judgment and order dated March 3l, 2009 dismissed the appeal. 3. In support of this petition, Shri.Thokade, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the Courts failed to appreciate that the evidence on record clearly shows that the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the suit property. Both the Courts committed error in holding 3 that the respondent Nos l to 5 were in possession of the suit property prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of respondent Nos 6 to l2 and the respondent Nos 6 to l2 are in possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale deed. . In his submission, there is no iota of evidence produced by the respondent establishing they are in possession of the suit property. 4. In the light of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and after perusal of the record, I am of the view that no case is made out for invocation of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the Courts have considered the material on record in the shape of revenue record and prima facie recorded finding that the respondent Nos 6 to l2 are in possession of the suit property after the sale deed was executed by the respondent Nos l to 5 in their favour. The Respondents admitted possession of the petitioner to the extent of two shops and godown and at the same time, have proved that they are in possession of the rest of the suit property. Considering this aspect, the Courts below protected the 4 possession of the petitioner in respect of two shops and one garage. There is no error committed by the Courts below and the findings are based upon the evidence on record. It cannot be said that the impugned orders are perverse. 5. In the light of this, no case is made for interference at the hands of this Court. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the event, respondents carry out construction on the open plot which is subject matter of the dispute between the parties, construction will be subject to the orders that may be passed by the Trial Court in suit. It is, further made clear that in the event respondents carry out any construction on the open plot, they will ensure that the egress and ingress of the petitioner in respect of the two shops and godown is not obstructed. (R.G. KETKAR, J)