=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.4542 OF 2006 NO.4542 OF 2006 NO.4542 OF 2006 Shri Arjun Tanaji Kumbhar and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Shri Niwas Eknath Jadhav and ors. ...Respondents Mr L.S. Gaikwad for Petitioners. Mr P.B. Walimbe with Mr R.D. Suryawanshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. DATE DATE DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 P.C.- 1. The petitioners, who are unsuccessful in getting injunction order from the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court, have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The suit is for injunction. The same is still pending. As the plaintiffs are unable to prove their possession and irreparable loss and therefore, =2= considering the balance of convenience, both the Courts concurrently rejected their application. The recital in any document, in any proceedings, as contended, cannot be the base to hold the possession of the property. The submission that there was no such mention and therefore, this Court should interfere with the concurrent findings is unacceptable. Once the finding is given by the Courts below regarding possession, there is no room to interfere with the order impugned. Petition is therefore dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA J. )