jpc 1 wp8934-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8934 OF 2011 Ravalnath Chimanji Joshi and others .. Petitioners Versus Hindurao Shankar Gurav and others .. Respondents Mr. Surel Shah for the petitioners Mr. P. D. Dalvi for respondent no.2 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 21st November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 1st October, 2010 passed by the learned District Kolhapur-3 by which the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011, filed by the respondents herein, came to be allowed and resultantly, the application for temporary injunction sought vide Exh.5 in Reg. Civil Suit No. 115 of 2010 came to be granted in favour of the respondents herein. 2. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 115 of 2010 for injunction in respect of land bearing Gut no. 290 admeasuring 3 acre 29 R. The respondents claims to be tenants in jpc 2 wp8934-11.sxw respect of the suit land. Respondents filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the petitioners herein who are the defendants from interference with their possession. The said application for temporary injunction was considered by the trial Court and by the order dated 14th March, 2011 the said application came to be rejected, as according to the trial Court, the plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie for grant of the said relief and balance of convenience was also not in their favour. The trial Court relied on the entry made in the year 1991 in respect of the cultivation column and recorded a finding that the defendants were in possession of the property and the plaintiffs were not. 3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14th March, 2011, the plaintiffs filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011 which, as indicated above, was allowed by the impugned order dated 1st October, 2011. The First Appellate Court has upset the order passed by the trial Court on the ground that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has paid undue emphasis on the entry made in the cultivation column. In view of the fact that the tax for the said land was paid by the plaintiffs for the years 2001 to 2005 and since the name of the plaintiffs were appearing continuously in the record of rights from the year 1958-59 and since the entry in respect of cultivation column made in the year 1990-91 could not be relied upon, jpc 3 wp8934-11.sxw in view of the letter of Tahsildar dated 12th July, 2011 and also considering the fact that the suit was filed by he defendants against the plaintiffs for recovery of possession, the First Appellate Court was of the view it would have to be held that the plaintiffs are in possession and the findings recorded by the trial Court in its order were perverse. 4. Having considered the reasons mentioned by the First Appellate Court whilst upsetting the order passed by the trial Court and also considering the material that is on record, in my view, the First Appellate Court was right in setting aside the order passed by the trial Court refusing injunction to the plaintiffs. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court reported in 2008 (2) All MR 118, Shamrao Ganpat Chintamani Vs. Kakasaheb Laxman Gorde. The said judgment is as regards the presumptive value of the mutation entries. In the light of the findings recorded by the First Appellate court in the impugned order, in my view, the said said judgment (supra) would have no application. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. At this stage, a prayer is made for continuing the order of status jpc 4 wp8934-11.sxw quo which was granted on 20th of October, 2011 which is continuing till this date. Since the said order is an ex-parte order, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove, there is no warrant to continue the same. Hence prayer is refused. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)