1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1736/2009 Sau. Shashikala Ramchandra Tupkar and another .versus. Shri Prabhakar Parasram Nalinde through L.Rs. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Cou rt's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.S.Kilor, counsel for petitioners Shri S.Saoji, counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25 th AUGUST, 2010 1] This petition is preferred by the original defendants challenging the order dated 18.3.2009, passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldhana, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1/2009. By this order, the learned District Judge has set aside the order dated 6.11.2008 passed below Exh.5 in RCS No. 120/2008 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mehkar. The trial Court rejected the application Exh.5. By allowing the appeal, the appellate 2 Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court and allowed Exh. 5 filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for injunction in respect of the suit property on the basis of finding regarding possession. Against this, the present writ petition has been preferred. 2] The only question raised in this appeal by the learned counsel Shri Kilor appearing for the petitioner is that, the appellate Court was wrong in reversing the finding in respect of the possession recorded by the trial Court. The contention is that the appellate Court has not considered the plea raised by the defendants that it was a money lending transaction and that it has ignored the finding regarding the spot inspection recorded in the order dated 17.7.2007 passed by the Tahsildar. According to him, the findings regarding spot inspection shows that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property. 3] After going through the order 3 passed by the appellant Court, it is apparent that the appellate Court has considered the question of money lending transaction. It has been held that the plaintiffs have not placed on record any material to substantiate the plea. So far as the findings regarding the possession of the defendants recorded in order dated 17.7.2007 passed by the Tahsildar, Sindkhed Raja, is concerned, the same has been set aside by the R.D.C by his order dated 2.7.2007. This has also been considered by the appellate Court. The appellate Court has reversed the finding of facts recorded by the trial Court, by taking possible view of the matter. 4] I do no find any perversity or error of jurisdiction in recording such finding, which calls for any interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence petition is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit