ssm sm sm 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 WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5688 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5688 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5688 OF 2008 Shabbir Ibrahim Shaikh & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Bashirullah Jaan Mohd.Khan ...Respondent. Mr.Rajesh Datar for the Petitioners. Mr.Harish Jain i/by Mr.Sandesh Patil for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th September, 2008. : 24th September, 2008. : 24th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner is original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.10/2005 filed for declaration and injunction against the Respondent/Defendant. In this suit, the Petitioners took out an application at Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction restraining the Respondent from disturbing his possession. The Trial Court rejected the Application for temporary injunction and the lower Appellate Court confirmed the same. ( 2 ) 3. Mr.Datar, submitted that the 7/12 extract of the suit property shows his possession over the suit property. Perusal of the 7/12 extract which is annexed to the Petition at Page 111 reveals that the Petitioners’ name is entered into cultivation column till 2001. However, the suit is filed in the year 2005. There is absolutely no documentary evidence to support Petitioners’ case that they are in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. There is a concurrent findings of the fact that the Petitioner failed to prove prima-facie possession over the suit land. I find no reasons to interfere in the same. The Trial Court, however, is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit No.10/2005. 4. Writ Petition, accordingly, is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)