1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.135 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2603 OF 2008 Namdev Dada Pisal ...Petitioner vs. 1 The State of Maharashtra 2 Jagannath Mahadev Chavan 3 Hari @ Tukaram Bala Chavan 4 Shankar Malhari Chavan ...Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole i/b Ms Jai Kanade for the petitioner Mr.Sugandh Deshmukh for respondent no.2 Mr.A.I.Parel A.G.P. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 20, 2009 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner in support of the review petition. The review is sought of the Judgment and Order dated 2 nd September 2009 passed by this court by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Judgment and Order dated 30 th September 2005 passed in the Second Appeal No.239 of 1989. He invited my attention to the observations made by this court to the effect that the possession of the petitioner was restored. He invited my attention to 7/12 extracts of Gat No.364 which are filed on record of the trial court which support the case of the petitioner that he is in possession. He submitted that there is nothing on 2 record to show that the second respondent was placed in possession. He submitted that a very limited relief could have been granted by protecting the possession of the petitioner till he is dispossessed by following due process of law. He submitted that all throughout the possession of the petitioner was protected. 3 After having considered the submissions I find that no case is made out for Review. Perusal of the paragraph 6 of the Judgment and Order dated 2 nd September 2009 shows that this Court has observed that equitable relief of temporary injunction was rightly denied to the petitioner in view of the order passed by the State Government on 27 th September 1976. In paragraph 6 detailed reasons have been recorded on the basis of which this Court has declined to interfere in exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the orders of the Courts below by which discretionary relief of temporary injunction was denied by both the courts below. 4 There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, there is no reason to interfere with the earlier order. 5 The learned counsel for the review petitioner seeks continuation of the of ad-interim relief which was 3 extended till 2ndNovember 2009. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 6 Ad-interim relief which was operating from 16 th April 2008 will continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today. JUDGE