1 wp 5208.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5208 OF 2011 Somnath Eknath Ambhore .. Petitioner Versus Hari Rustum Kamvade and others .. Respondents Ms. P. V. Langhe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Vishant P. Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . This is plaintiff’s petition. The plaintiff has filed a suit for the injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction which came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff filed an appeal. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby the present petition is filed. 2. Mrs. Langhe, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 wp 5208.11 strenuously contends that the agreement was executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff. To avoid the payment of stamp duty the defendants executed registered power of attorney. The power of attorney was also acted upon. Pursuant to the registered power of attorney Bharna Pawati was executed and the lands were sold to various persons, still one acre land remains out of total nine acres of land. The Courts have not considered the non agricultural permission and the sanctioned lay-out, wherein it is specifically shown that the said plots under the lay-out belong to the present plaintiff. The learned counsel further contends that even the assessment of tax receipt is in the name of the plaintiff. All these facts unequivocally go to show that the plaintiff has domain over the property and is in possession of the same. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the orders passed. 4. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the prima facie case. This Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot entertain the writ petition only on the ground that 3 wp 5208.11 some other view may be possible. The Courts below have observed that the agreement is not signed by all the defendants. The power of attorney is also not executed by all the defendants. Even the tax receipt is shown in the name of plaintiff as a General Power of Attorney of the defendants. Moreover, the plaintiff himself contends that almost eight (8) acres land has been sold and the plaintiff could not prima facie establish his actual physical possession over the total suit property. These findings are plausible one. At this prima facie stage the Courts on the available material have arrived at a possible and plausible conclusion. In such circumstances, the orders passed cannot be interfered with. The writ petition as such is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. 5. Needless to state that the observations made are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court at the time of final disposal would decide the suit on its own merits on the available evidence. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11