( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 91 OF 2010 Ibrahim s/o. Balam Chaugule & Anr. .. Appellants Versus Mohammed s/o. Balam Chaugule & Ors. .. Respondents Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Vinod Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 14.09.2010 P.C. :- 1. This Appeal from Order is filed challenging order dated 04.05.2010, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, below Exh. 5, in Special Civil Suit No. 12 of 2010. 2. The appellants herein filed application below Exh. 5 for seeking direction that defendant No.3 shall not create third party right in the suit property and position of the status-quo to the suit property to be maintained pending the ( 2 ) suit. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though Gat No. 124/1 is shown in the name of defendant No.1, the plaintiff is in actual possession of the said suit land. It is further submitted that though Gat No. 124/3 is in the name of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 is in possession of the said suit land. Learned counsel invited my attention to para 3 of the impugned judgment and contended that the Trial Court has recorded perverse finding that “It is further not disputed that the land bearing Gut No. 124/1 admeasuring 71R was in cultivation & possession of non-applicant No.1". According to the Counsel for the appellants the said finding recorded by the Trial Court is perverse and contrary to the contentions raised by the appellants in the application below Exh.5. The learned counsel further submitted that 7/12 extract and also other documents are placed on record in support of contentions of the plaintiffs about their claim for possession. Learned counsel further submitted that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the affidavit filed by two persons supporting claim of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel also invited my attention to other findings recorded by the Trial Court that there was close door collusion between the ( 3 ) plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 & 2. Learned Counsel submitted that there was no collusion. Separate written statements were filed on behalf of those defendants. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the findings recorded by the Trial Court that is “nobody prevented plaintiffs from purchasing the property” and submitted that said finding is beyond the scope of pleadings in the application. Learned counsel also invited my attention to various annexures annexed to the appeal memo, particularly page Nos. 37 to 40 to contend that the plaintiff and his brothers are in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel further submitted that till the final disposal of suit order of status quo ought to have been continued by the Trial Court, since it was granted initially. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the grounds taken in appeal memo and also to Section 232 of the Mohamedan Law. In the aforesaid background the counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Trial Court taking into consideration the entire evidence placed on record, including the documents ( 4 ) filed by the plaintiffs, has come to the definite conclusion and rejected the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Trial Court is well reasoned order. Defendant No.3 i.e. respondent herein has purchased the property in auction. The findings of the Trial Court is in consonance with the revenue entries and other documents brought on record. Therefore, learned counsel submits that there is no case for interference by this Court. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants as well as the respondents. It appears that the Trial Court in para 10 and 11 has considered the documents which were placed on record on behalf of original plaintiffs and recorded finding that the documents produced on record by the plaintiffs are not sufficient to grant application below Exh.5. It appears that that order passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with the revenue entries. Counsel for the appellants submitted that though the revenue entries are shown in the name of defendant No.1, the plaintiff is in actual possession of the suit property. ( 5 ) 5. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced on behalf of the counsel for the appellants & the respondents and on perusal of para 10 and 11 of the Trial Court Judgment, it clearly emerges that the order passed by the Trial Court is in consonance with the documents brought on record. The Court has rightly refused to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiffs. No case is made out for interference. The Appeal From Order is devoid of merit. Hence, the Appeal From Order is dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE,J.] snk/2010/SEP10/ao91.10