Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2296 of 2008 Sou. Shantabai Ramchandra Shedge ..Petitioner V/s. Smt. Sharadabai Kondiram Jamdade ..Respondents Mr.A.B.Borkar for the Petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 9th April, 2008 : 9th April, 2008 : 9th April, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr. Borkar, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner who is impleaded as defendant no.1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 249/2006 filed by the present Respondent No.1 and 2. 2. In the said suit the application for temporary injunction filed at exh.5 came to be allowed by the trial Court on 2-12-2006 and the said order was carried in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 14/2007 before the District Court at Satara. The Appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 26-11-2007. 3. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that prima-facie the plaintiffs are in possession of suit land and, therefore, they were successful in making out the case for passing restraining orders against the Petitioner. 2 4. The Lower Appellate Court not only considered the 7 X 12 extracts at exh. 12 to 15 and the documents at exh. 17 to 19, it also referred to Regular Civil Suit No. 5 of 1970 which was filed by the father of defendant No. 2 Shri Balwant Jagtap. In para-7 of the plaint at exh.37 it was clearly stated that Shri Kondiram Jamdade, the husband of the Plaintiff no.1 was in possession of the suit land. Similarly, Revision Application No. 5/2004 decided by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune also indicated that Shri Kondiram Jamdade was in possession of the suit land, when the revision was decided. The lower appellate Court has also considered the other record placed before it and, therefore, the concurrent view taken by both the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse or manifestly erroneous so as to cause interference in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. Petition is rejected summarily. Trial of the suit is expedited. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]