=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.7632 OF 2008 NO.7632 OF 2008 NO.7632 OF 2008 Tanaji B. Pawar ...Petitioner v/s Udhav P. Shete and ors. ...Respondents Mr S.D. Thokade for Petitioner. Mr A.M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA J. DATE DATE DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 P.C.- 1. The petitioner alongwith two others are admittedly subsequent purchasers of the property. The plaintiff is original purchaser who on the basis of registered document took possession of the property and is in possession of the same. The case of the respondents is that they are in possession of the property. Both the Courts below, after considering the material available on record, came to a clear conclusion that the respondents have made out a prima facie case =2= and balance of convenience lies in favour of them and therefore, granted interim injunction as prayed by the respondents. 2. Considering the rival contentions and the submissions as raised, I see that there is no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Courts below. There is no perversity within the framework of law and the record. however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to apply for appointment of Commissioner if so instructed. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA J. )