1 wp 7281.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7281 OF 2011 Najmumbee Miyan Patel Died 2. Arefa W/o Gafar Shaikh and others .. Petitioners Versus 1. Samiulla S/o Abdul Razak Patel and others .. Respondents Shri V. R. Jain (Kamboj), Advocate for Petitioners CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the original defendants. The present respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction in respect of the property bearing Sy No. 34 to the extent of 14 Acres and 38 Gunthas. The plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction. The said application was rejected. Aggrieved thereby plaintiffs filed appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal and allowed the temporary injunction application and clamped injunction vide order dated 08.06.2011. The said order 2 wp 7281.11 is assailed in the present writ petition. 2. Shri Jain, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the lower Appellate Court has not considered the entries in the 7/12 extract which shows the possession of the petitioners to the extent of 7 Acres and 12 Gunthas. Even the partition deed which is relied by the District Court is not registered and the same is not admitted by the petitioners. The said document is a disputed document. Even the sale deed which is relied is not admitted. Even the Trial Court observed that the sale deed is not on record. In absence of the entry in the revenue record, prima facie the plaintiffs could not have claimed possession over the property. 3. Perusal of the order passed by the Court, it appears that the sale deed executed by the father of the defendants in favour of the father of the plaintiffs to the extent of 4 Acres and 04 Gunthas is on record. The said sale deed also depicts the earlier partition between the parties. Moreover, the plaintiffs have also filed on record the affidavits of the adjoining land owners to substantiate the plea of possession. In view of all these documents, the Court below has taken a plausible view. In view of that the writ petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed, 3 wp 7281.11 however, with no order as to costs. 4. Needless to state that these observations are prima facie in nature and the Court shall decide the suit on its own merits dehors the observations made in the order deciding the miscellaneous civil appeal and present writ petition. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11