1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH SECOND APPEAL NO. 980 OF 2005 1. Shriram s/o. Govind Haridas, age 40 years, occ. agriculture, R/o. Pangaon, taluka Renapur, district Latur. 2. Sambhaji s/o. Krishna Gude, age 65 years, occ. agriculture, R/o. Pangaon, taluka Renapur, district Latur. 3. Vishnu Venkati Sampate, age 45 years, occ. agriculture, R/o. Pangaon, taluka Renapur, district Latur. 4. Shivraj s/o. Tukaram Bhandare, age 55 years, occ. agriculture, R/o. Pangaon, taluka Renpaur, district Latur. 5. Venkat s/o. Vithal Aname, age 50 years, occ. agriculture, r/o. Pangaon, tq. Renapur, district Latur. - - - - Appellants. [ Orig. defendants ] versus 1. Jankabai w/o. Ram Reddy, deleted vide Order dt.9/10/2009 2. Ram Nagnath Reddy, died - L.R.s 2/1 Jagannath Ram Chitade, 2 age 40 years, occ. agriculture, r/o. Pangaon, taluka Renapur, district Latur. 2/2 Ankush Ram Chitade, deleted vide Court's Order dtd. 9/10/09. 2/3 Sou. Kalpana Rajendra Gude, age 30 years, occ. household R/o. Kamkheda, taluka Renapur, dist. Latur. - - - Respondents [ Orig. plaintiffs ] Shri A. N. Gaddime, holding for Shri V. D. Gunale, Advocate for appellants. CORAM: N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 3rd December 2009 PER COURT: 1. Heard Shri A. M. Gaddime holding for Shri V. D. Gunale for the appellants. 2. The appellants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25-1-2005 passed by Ad hoc Additional District Judge. The appellants are original defendants and they were restrained by the impugned judgment and order from disturbing and interfering business of the plaintiffs which they are 3 carrying on in the suit property described in the plaint. The plaintiffs' suit for possession was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that he had no title and possession of the land. 2. I have perused impugned judgment of the 1st appellate Court wherein it is held that plaintiffs' have succeeded to prove their long standing possession as well as use of the suit property of the brick kiln for which Gram Panchayat, Pangaon has recovered charges and fees from him. So they are entitled for relief of perpetual injunction. It is also recorded that possession of the plaintiffs seems to be lawful and the defendants are third party to the suit property who admittedly created obstruction to the plaintiffs' business. This was the only issue before the trial Court and the 1st appellate Court. Admittedly, plaintiffs need not prove ownership of the title or possession of the Government land which is described as suit property. The suit was for injunction simpliciter for smooth running of his business without any obstruction from the defendants. The dispute has been rightly appreciated by the 1st appellate Court which is, also the fact finding Court, in the background of the village life. In village, villagers though few in numbers, the enmity amongst the groups or community in the village is unfortunate which disturbs peaceful village life. The only 4 course which was open to the plaintiffs to approach Civil Court for appropriate injunction and no other right to the suit property has been claimed. Therefore there is no question of substantial question of law in this second appeal. The protection by injunction order given to the respondents/ plaintiffs by appropriate injunction as per the impugned order calls for no interference. In fact, injunction simpliciter suits have limited but important role in maintaining the law and order with regard to person's peaceful running of his business and as such I find no fault in the impuged order. Injunction is a matter of discretion. No interference is called for. Second appeal is devoid of merits on the face of substantial question of law. Therefore, after hearing the Counsel, appeal stands dismissed summarily at the stage of admission. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) pnk/sa98005