1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Appeal Against Order No. 106 of 2011 Pramod s/o Angatrao Bankar Aged about 38 yrs. Occu. Service, R/o. 84-B, Unit-III, Gurunanakpura, Nagpur. ...APPELLANT. Versus 1. Charandas s/o Late Urkuda Bankar, Aged about 70 yrs. Occu. Retired Government Servant, R/o. Universal Manasion Apartment, 1st Floor, 104, Panday Layout, Wardha Road, Nagpur. 2. Smt. Sushila Angatrao Bankar, Aged about 66 yrs. Occu. Household, R/o. Plot No. 84-B, Unit-III, Gurunanakpura, Nagpur. 3. Smt. Sushma w/o Yeshwant Nikose, Aged about 41 yrs. Occu. Nil, R/o. Plot No. 84-B, Unit-III, Gurunanakpura, Nagpur. 4. Smt. Shailaja Sushil Nandgave, Aged about 36 yrs. Occu. Nil, R/o. Lashkaribagh, Nagpur. 2 5. Varsha Angatrao Bankar, Aged about 33 yrs. Occu. Nil, R/o. Plot No. 84-B, Unit – III, Gurunanakpura, Nagpur. 6. Poonam Angatrao Bankar, Aged about 32 yrs. Occu. Service, R/o. Plot No. 84-B, Unit-III, Gurunanakpura, Nagpur. 7. Nitin Angatrao Bankar, Aged about 32 yrs. Occu. Student, R/o. Plot No. 84-B, Unit-III, Gurunanakpura, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS.. ......................................................................................................................................... .. Mr. R. D. Thakur, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Respondents No. 2 to 7 served. ......................................................................................................................................... .. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 30th NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT :- Admit. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 3 2. The order impugned in this appeal is dated 20/04/2011, passed by the learned District Judge-4, Nagpur, in R.C.A. No. 514/2009, granting injunction restraining the appellants from disturbing the possession of the respondents over the suit property pending the decision of the appeal. The Appellate Court has failed to record the findings on the aspect of the possession over the suit property, hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same will have to be set aside with a direction to decide the application afresh. 3. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/04/2011 passed in RCS No. 451/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Court to decide the application afresh in accordance with the law by recording findings on relevant aspects. No order as to costs. JUDGE Punde