1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7171 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. S.V.Chandole holding for Mr. V.G.Sakolkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent. ........................... [ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 11/12/2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge Order dated 8/9/2009 vide which an Appeal filed by the respondent is allowed and an order of temporary injunction has been passed in favour of the respondent. 2. The plaintiff has filed a Suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he has purchased suit land on 19/1/2009 from defendant no. 1 for a valuable consideration. According to him, he is also put in possession of the 2 suit land after the sale deed. 3. The Suit is resisted by the petitioners/original defendant nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the sale deed was without consideration and as such not binding on the defendants. They have also asserted that they were in possession. 4. Along with Suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The same was rejected by the learned trial court. Being aggrieved thereby, an Appeal was filed and the same is allowed. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 5. Mr. Chandole, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that the learned appellate court has grossly erred in reversing the order passed by the learned trial court, vide which injunction was refused in favour of plaintiff/respondent. He further submits that since the Court Commissioner was appointed, the learned appellate court ought not to have decided the Appeal. 6. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, the learned 3 counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the learned appellate court while allowing the application, has given an elaborate reasons and as such no interference is warranted. 7. No doubt, the scope of interference in an Appeal against the order under Order XLIII Rule 1 (2) is limited. Unless it is found that the finding of the appellate court is perverse, it would not be permissible for this Court to reverse the same. In the present case, injunction has been refused by the learned trial court ignoring the documentary evidence in the nature of sale deed and a recital in the sale deed itself regarding delivery of possession. Not only this, the 7/12 extract right from the year 2001 would show the possession of respondent/plaintiff. Ignoring this, the learned trial court had rejected the application for injunction on conjunctures and surmises. I find that the learned appellate court was justified in reversing said finding and granting order of injunction on the basis of documentary evidence in support of the case of the plaintiff. It is further to be noted that there was also evidence in the 4 nature of affidavit against affidavit on behalf of parties. 8. In that view of the matter, I find no error could be found in the order passed by the appellate court, which is passed relying on material documentary evidence. No interference is warranted. Hence, rejected. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP7171.09