1 WP 5837/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5837 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. T.S. Ingale for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 3RD AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the judgment and order dated 18 June 2010 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-3, Sangli, allowing the appeal of the respondent and dismissing the petitioners’ application for injunction. 3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the suit land. The respondents are the owners 2 WP 5837/10 of the neighbouring land. The petitioners filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondents from creating any new right or road for passing through their land. The trial court granted the injunction. The lower appellate court, on appeal, vacated the injunction. Aggrieved petitioners are before this Court. 4. Whether there exists a road in the suit property is a question of fact. Finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court about the existence of the road is a possible finding of fact requiring no interference in writ jurisdiction. 5. The finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate court appears to be based on evidence. There was a prior litigation between the parties before the revenue authorities. The Tahsildar held that there exists a road. An appeal filed against the order of the Tahsildar was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The finding of the lower appellate court 3 WP 5837/10 regarding balance of convenience is also in favour of the respondents. If the respondents are restrained from using the suit road, there would not be access to their property and they would suffer great irretrievable loss. 6. For these reasons, no case is made out for interference in the order of the lower appellate court. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)