( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1875 OF 2010 1. Vijaysing Ransing Patil 2. Sau. Meenabai Vijaysing Patil 3. Chandrakant Vijaysing Patil All r/o Nachankhede, Taluka Pachora, District Jalgaon. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Sau. Vandana w/o Ramesh Patil 2. Sau. Jyoti Lalsing Patil Both r/o Nachankhede, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.P. Tiwari, advocate for the respondent No. 1. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th July, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging judgement and order rendered by learned District Judge-2, ( 2 ) Jalgaon, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 59/2009. The said appeal was preferred by the petitioners against order of temporary injunction rendered by the trial Court. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 3. The petitioners are original defendants. The respondents filed suit (R.C.S. No. 113/2008) for perpetual injunction. The respondents alleged that they have purchased the suit field bearing Gat No. 143, admeasuring 2 hectares 37 ares situated at village Nachankhede from the petitioner No. 1. They submitted that the petitioner No. 1 (defendant No.1) executed registered sale-deed dated 19th April, 2003 in their favour on payment of the price of Rs. 3,05,000/-. They have developed and cultivated the said land. They alleged that the petitioner No. 1 used to harass them and the respondent No.1's husband. The further allegation was that the petitioners unlawfully obstructed their peaceful possession. Consequently, they sought permanent injunction. They filed application (Exh-5) for ad-interim injunction during pendency of the suit. The petitioners resisted the suit and the application. The petitioners contended that the transaction between themselves and the respondent No. 1 was not that of out and out sale, but it was a loan transaction. They asserted ( 3 ) that they were in possession of the suit field. They contended that it was agreed between the respondents and the petitioner No. 1 that the amount of loan, as was advanced by the respondents, would be returned alongwith interest and thereafter, the nominal sale-deed will be returned in their favour. They further alleged that when the respondent No. 1 and her husband declined to reconvey the suit field, there took place quarrel between them which was ultimately settled before the Village Committee, called “Tanta Mukti Samiti” ( ). They contended that the respondent No.1's husband signed the settlement deed and it was agreed that on payment of Rupees six (6) lacs, the re- conveyance deed will be executed. According to them, they had never parted with the actual possession of the suit field. On these premises, they sought dismissal of the injunction application. 4. The trial Court granted ad—interim injunction by allowing application (Exh-5). The petitioners thereafter preferred the Misc. Civil Appeal which came to be dismissed vide the order impugned herein. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) 6. Question which needs consideration is as to whether the impugned judgement and order of the learned District Judge-II is perverse and as such, deserves interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners inter alia asserted that the transaction was only nominal and the sale-deed was not to be acted as per the oral settlement. The petitioners filed affidavits of adjacent land owners. Those land owners, who are cultivating the lands bearing Gat No. 138, 148 (2), 144 and 139, are the persons having better knowledge about cultivation of the suit field bearing Gat No. 143. It appears that the suit field is sandwiched between lands Gat No. 144 and 143. The adjoining land holders supported case of the petitioners. So also, the petitioners placed on record a copy of the compromise deed (Tadjod Patra) dated 10th June, 2008. It appears that there was settlement agreed between the petitioner No. 1 and husband of the respondent No.1 in presence of the members of Tanta Mukti Samiti. It is true that the respondent No. 1 is not a signatory to that document. 7. The impugned judgement and order rendered by the learned District Judge-2 does not reflect consideration of the ( 5 ) affidavits filed by the adjoining land holders. The learned District Judge-2 did not assign any tangible reason for discarding the said affidavits. He did not discuss the material found in the affidavits. He vaguely stated that the defence taken by the defendants may be probable, but it will be only after recording of the evidence that it can be ascertained whether it can be proved or relied upon. The entire text of the impugned judgement shows that the reasoning part of the judgement does not indicate proper appreciation of the material placed on record. There are only general statements made by the learned District Judge-2 as would be explicit from the following passage quoted from the said order: “But for the present, the registered as well as public documents which have not been disputed cannot be ignored by a Court of law and as such, in my view, the plaintiffs had made out a case for grant of injunction and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judge of the trial Court cannot be faulted with.” ( 6 ) Which are the public documents of which capital could be made, except certain entries in the 7/12 extract, is not made clear, nor the fact that the adjoining land holders have no much reason to file affidavits against the respondent No. 1, is duly considered. In any case, the impugned judgement does not show consideration of the relevant material placed on record with all that seriousness required of a Judicial Officer. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgement and order is perverse and as such, liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgement and order is set aside. The Misc. Civil Appeal shall be restored to its original position and shall be re-heard and de novo final disposal thereof be done within period of two (2) months. The learned District Judge to discuss the entire material appropriately as required under the provisions of law. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1875-10