1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8174 OF 2009 1. Rajabhau s/o. Narayan Giri, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agril., 2. Sumanbai w/o. Rajabhau Giri, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Household, 3. Bibinanda w/o. Dattu Giri, Age 35 yrs., Occu. Household, 4. Angad s/o. Narayan Giri, Age 35 yrs., Occu. Agril., All R/o. Takalgaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. ....Petitioners. Versus Vijaykumar s/o. Namdevrao Kale, Age 40 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Kalewadi, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. ....Respondent. Shri. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge - 1, Latur, allowing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 56/2009, filed by the respondent/plaintiff and set aside the order dated 2.9.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Renapur, rejecting the application for grant of injunction Exh. 5, filed by 2 the plaintiff. The Appellate Court has allowed the application Exh. 5 and restrained the present petitioners from causing any obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff in enjoyment over the suit land till the decision of the suit. 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 11.12.2009 for final disposal and the parties were directed to maintain statusquo. Shri. C.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel appears for respondent sole. The learned counsels for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally by consent of parties. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 38/2009 for perpetual injunction, restraining the petitioners, who are the defendants in that suit, from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. An application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The Trial Court rejected the said application by it's order dated 2.9.2009, holding that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case. It was held that the balance of convenience did not lie in favour of plaintiff and no irreparable loss would be caused, if the injunction is not granted in favour of plaintiff. Specific finding is recorded by the Trial Court on the basis of the 7/12 extracts that the plaintiff was not found to be in possession of the property. Hence, the application for injunction was rejected. 3 4. Misc. Civil Appeal No. 56/2009 was preferred by the plaintiff/respondent. The Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale deed dated 30.8.2003. It has been held that the prima facie the plaintiff has proved the ownership and possession over the land in question. Hence, on the basis of such findings, the order of the Trial Court was set aside and the application Exh. 5 filed by the plaintiff was allowed, granting temporary injunction. This is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners Shri. S.P. Urgunde has urged that the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the suit property. He has relied upon the findings recorded by the Trial Court. He submitted that it was Inam land and the Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not come with a clean hand. The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the suit property. He relies upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 296 in the case of Chandarashekhar Shankarrao Kulkarni Vs. Rahul Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sansar Nagar, Aurangabad. 6. It is not in dispute that the suit was simplicitor for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with 4 the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. On the basis of record available, which was produced before the Trial Court, a finding is recorded that the plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the suit property. The Appellate Court has taken into consideration the said record and has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. Thus, a possible view is taken by the Appellate Court in recording finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Resultantly, the injunction order has been passed. Hence, no interference is called for in the view taken by the Appellate Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit property and reliance is placed on the judgment cited supra. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellate Court has taken a possible view of the matter, holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, which does not call for any interference. Hence, the judgment relied upon is of no avail to the petitioners. 8. In the result, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule is discharged. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp8174.09