1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4429 OF 2008 (Tanabai Vitthalrao Ingole & Ors. vs. Khushal Mahadeorao Kohade & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 11, 2008. Heard finally Shri Ahirrao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Bangde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 & 3. The petitioners – plaintiffs application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code, has been rejected by the trial Court after noticing the fact that they executed sale deed in favour of the respondents on 17.6.1991 and challenged it only after about 16 years when the mutation was sought. It found that the documents to show possession, produced by the petitioners, were not trustworthy. These findings are maintained by the lower appellate Court. Shri Ahirrao, learned counsel has argued that the Courts below have not correctly approached the controversy. He states that the alleged sale deed itself came to the knowledge of the petitioners when 2 they received notice of mutation proceedings and immediately suit was filed. He filed 7/12 extracts showing possession of present petitioners and the affidavit of neighbouring owners supporting the case. Shri Bangde, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that the sale deed was never disputed and when mutation was sought, the objection was raised. He pointed out that the photographs of possession as also the affidavits of neighbouring owners are rightly appreciated by the Courts below. When the burden was upon the petitioners – plaintiffs to show their possession, they should have filed evidence to show that they were cultivating the suit property. No document of actual cultivation was produced. The Courts below found that the photographs and affidavits of neighbouring owners could not be connected with the suit land. In the circumstances, when the burden was upon the petitioners – plaintiffs, I do not find any perversity in the approach of Courts below but considering the contention that immediately when they received the notice of mutation they filed the Civil suit, the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 271 of 2006 pending on the file of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, are expedited and said 3 Court is directed to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31st December 2009. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.