1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4686 OF 2009 (Uttam N. Tathe vs. Kiran G. Khandale) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 25, 2010. Heard Shri Palshikar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chopde, learned counsel for the respondent. The trial Court found the respondent – plaintiff in possession in view of the spot statement drawn by the police authorities and therefore rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction. The respondent then filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2009 and lower appellate Court found that alleged statement in spot panchnama was not decisive in any way. It, therefore, granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and protected his possession. Shri Palshikar, learned counsel argues that spot panchnama clearly reveal possession of the petitioner – defendant and the agreement for sale was suppressed by the respondent – plaintiff. He states that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the controversy. According to Shri Chopde, learned counsel, the facts are not gone into by that Court and relevant 2 facts have been considered in appellate judgment. The perusal of appellate judgment clearly reveals that the suit field was purchased by the respondent – plaintiff and the plaintiff has been recorded in possession thereof even in year 2006-07 till 2008-09. In this background, lower appellate Court has found that agreement dated 24.11.1997 did not contain any reference to handing over of possession. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to substantiate his argument that house thereon is constructed by the petitioner and he is residing there since 1997. In view of this position, it is apparent that spot panchnama which obviously has been prepared after dispute between the parties, cannot be of any assistance to resolve this controversy. The lower appellate Court has correctly appreciated the issue. No case is made out warranting any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.