1 C.A.6182.2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6182 OF 2004 IN S. A. NO. 955 OF 2004 (Babruwan So Dadaram Shinde VERSUS Kalyanrao S/o Nanaji Patil and others) Mr. N.E. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. R.S. Patil, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders P.C.:- 1] Heard. The Civil Application deserves to be allowed for two reasons:(i) That similar order was passed in favour of the applicant- appellant when the matter was before the Courts below. (ii) In the judgment of the first appeal Court, it is observed that though the appellant was cultivating the land in dispute, it was then on behalf of the respondent no.4-his paternal aunt. The learned Judge of the first appeal Court held that such cultivation would not amount to possession and that the respondent no.4 was in fact in possession of the land. 2 C.A.6182.2004 2] But, in view of the observation that the appellant was cultivating the land, his physical control over the land is apparent and the same should be protected during the pendency of the Appeal. The Civil Application is allowed. There shall be order in terms of prayer clause (A) and (B) till the Second Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- DT. : 04.03.2010 (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp