1 C.A. 5134/2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5134/2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 185/2011 SHAIKH CHAND PASHA S/O SHAIKH GAFFAR VS. ABDUL MUNAF S/O ABDUL HAKEEM Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 28th June, 2011. Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.M. Joshi, advocate for respondent sole. 1. Heard. 2. This application seeks stay to the impugned judgment and decree of perpetual injunction. The respondent / plaintiff filed this suit for perpetual injunction only in respect of abut ½ portion of land Gat No. 10/1 of village Mangrul Tq. Jintur, District Parbhani. It is his case that he is owner of entire Gat No. 10/1 which admeasures 2 H 76 R. He said that the suit portion of the Gat is in his possession and the appellant / defendant was trying to interfere in it. The question therefore, was whether he could show his peaceful and settled possession of the suit portion of 2 C.A. 5134/2011 the said Gat. At the trial stage, he admitted, that the defendant had forcibly entered the suit land and cultivated the same. The revenue record shows that since 1996-97, the suit land was under the appellant’s cultivation. This position of the revenue record continued till 2003, when the name of appellant / defendant was removed by the revenue authorities. The appellant / defendant challenged the act of removal of his name from revenue record from cultivation column rather belatedly in 2007 but failed to obtain appropriate order. Despite of rejection of his application for reinstating his name in revenue record, local revenue officer continued to show his name in cultivation column since 2007 till date. In this back ground, I am trying to appreciate the admission mentioned above, given by the respondent / plaintiff. At this prima facie stage, admission goes against the respondent / plaintiff. It is not his case that he has successfully removed the appellant / defendant from the suit land. So, prima facie, it appears that the appellant / defendant is still in possession and cultivation of the suit land. In view of this, the effect of the impugned judgment and order deserves to be stayed. The application is allowed. This order however, shall not prevent the respondent / plaintiff from taking appropriate steps for removal of the 3 C.A. 5134/2011 appellant / defendant from the suit land, by following due process of law. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/2011/June28/ca5134.11