1 wp698.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 698 of 2011 Kumudini Ganesh Datar ... Petitioner v/s. Chandulal Bargav Mahajan ... Respondent Mr. R.S. Apte i/b. N.R. Bubna for the petitioner. Mr. Satyajeet Mirajkar for the respondent. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 08, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24th December, 2010 vide which the learned Appellate Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner below exhibit 13 in Appeal No. 31/2010 for temporary injunction during the pendency of the appeal came to be rejected. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance. The same is dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred. In the appeal contending that taking advantage of dismissal of suit, though the plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises, the 2 wp698.11.sxw defendant was threatening to disturb the possession of the appellant, an application as aforesaid came to be filed. The same was rejected. Hence, the petition. 2. Shri Apte, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that in the agreement of sale there was a specific condition regarding the delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that inspite of this the learned Appellate Court by a perverse finding that the plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendant has dismissed the application. He, therefore, submits that impugned order is not sustainable in law. 3. Shri Apte, learned Senior Counsel also submits that vide the order dated 28th December, 2010, Tehsildar has directed the petitioner’s name to be entered into 7/12 extract and, therefore, it has to be held that petitioner is in possession. 4. Shir Mirajkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the contrary submits that learned trial Court by an elaborate reasoning has found that plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the suit 3 wp698.11.sxw premises and as such no interference is warranted in the present petition. 5. Nodoubt that the reasonings as given by the learned Appellate Court in Paragraph 11 pertaining to admission of the plaintiff are not supported by the evidence on record. However, at the sametime it has to be seen that learned trial Court by an elaborate reasoning has found that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the suit premises. It has been found by the learned trial Court that perusal of 7/12 extract for the years 1999-2000 would show that the defendant was in possession of the suit land. It has further been found that even the evidence of witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs i.e. PW5 Sharad Jadhav and PW6 Ramchandra Bhairu also does not support the case of the petitioner that she is in possession. On the contrary it has been found that the defendant has never applied for changing any entry in the 7/12 extracts. In view of this specific finding by the learned trial Court, it cannot be said that the learned Appellate Court was not justified in rejecting the application. Insofar as reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the order of Tehsildar dated 28th December, 2010 is concerned, by now it is settled law that between the finding of a Revenue Authority and a Civil Court, on an appreciation of evidence, it is always the finding by a Civil Judge, which will have to be 4 wp698.11.sxw given more weightage. 6. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. The learned Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. 8. Needless to state that observations made by the Appellate Court and also this Court are only of prima-facie consideration and learned Appellate Court would not be influenced by the same at the stage of hearing of the appeal. 9. At this stage Shri Apte, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for continuation of the status-quo which is granted by this Court while issuing notice. Shri Mirajkar, learned Counsel vehemently opposes the prayer. 5 wp698.11.sxw 10. Admittedly, there was no order of injunction operating in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit and order of injunction has been granted for the first time on 4th February, 2011. 11. In view of the view taken by me, I do not find the case is made out for continuation of stay. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)