( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2014 OF 2010 Dhondiba s/o Rabhaji Khemnar & others PETITIONERS VERSUS Kisnabai w/o Ananda Khemnar & another RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1341 OF 2010 Dhondiba s/o Rabhaji Khemnar & others PETITIONERS VERSUS Kisnabai w/o Ananda Khemnar & another RESPONDENTS .... Mr. D.D. Pokharkar, advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. ] [DATE : 5th May, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The real issue appears to be in the context of validity and correctness of the consolidation record. So far, the petitioners have not moved the competent authority to rectify the consolidation scheme. It appears that the first Appellate Court considered the continuous entries in the consolidation record and, therefore, held that prima facie case is made out by the respondents. The petitioners have raised various ( 2 ) disputed questions of facts. The impugned order of the first Appellate Court, whereby the temporary injunction is granted, cannot be said to be perverse. In this view of the matter, the following order would meet ends of justice. O (i) Both the petitions are dismissed. (ii) The learned Judge of the trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the suit and the counter claim on merits thereof, without being influenced by the observations of the first Appellate Court and keeping the issue regarding correctness of consolidation record open. (iii) The petitioners are at liberty to move the competent consolidation authority for the purpose of rectification of the consolidation scheme. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp2014-1341-2010