(1) CA. 7656.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7656 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1466 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2007 Vinayak S/o Sampatrao Wagh and others .. Applicants VERSUS Santosh S/o Punjaram Pakhare .. Respondent Mr. S.G. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Applicants Ms. Megha Vaishnav, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 31ST JULY, 2009 P.C.:- 1] The applicants-respondents sought through this application setting aside of the interim order dated 14.10.2008 in civil application no. 1466 of 2008 passed in favour of the appellant in this appeal; in the alternative, they sought modification of the interim order and replace it with order of status quo. 2] The background facts are as under: . The appellant was the plaintiff in the trial Court. He filed a suit in respect of an (2) CA. 7656.2009 agricultural land, saying that he was in possession and the respondents-defendants were trying to disturb him. The respondents retorted, saying that they were in possession and order of injunction, cannot be passed against him. The lower Court held in favour of the appellant and decreed the suit and the respondents were injuncted from interfering with the possession of the appellant. The respondents went in appeal before the District Judge, where the appeal was allowed. It was held that the appellant had failed to prove his possession. Against this, the present Second Appeal is filed. Pending the admission of the appeal, the appellant made an application for temporary injunction before this Court (Civil Application no. 1466 of 2008). The respondents were given notice of this application. The respondents did not file any reply affidavit etc. but orally opposed the application. Upon hearing both the sides, this Court allowed the application in terms of prayer clause [C] which reads as under:- [C] Pending hearing and final disposal of this Civil Application and Second Appeal, by issuing an order of injunction, the respondents, their agents, servants or any one acting on their behalf may be restrained from causing interference in to the peaceful possession of the applicant over the suit land i.e. land admeasuring 2 Acres 25 R western side of land Gut No.163 situated at village Gondegaon, Tq. & Dist. (3) CA. 7656.2009 Jalna within the boundaries. To the East – remaining area of Gut No.163 To the West– Gut no. 162 belonging to Plaintiff's family To the South – Gut No.193 belonging to Rajabhau To the North – Gut no.162 belonging to Plaintiff 3] The respondents in support of this application, stated that after passing of the above mentioned order, the appellant approached the Collector and sought possession of the suit land. The Collector then directed the Tahsildar to see that the appellant got possession of the suit land and the respondents are kept out. It seems, the Tahsildar, the Circle Inspector etc. then approached the Police for help. The local Police sent letters to the respondents, saying that they were implementing the order of the High Court etc. The respondents took this as a threat to their possession of the suit land and then approached this Court through this application. When the respondents say that they are in possession of the suit land, they are practically negating this Court's prima facie finding that the appellant is in possession and the respondents are not. I am afraid this assertion cannot be heard once the Court has passed the interim order quoted above. What has happened before the Revenue Officers and (4) CA. 7656.2009 the local Police, is probably an attempt to implement the order passed by this Court. This Court had specifically directed the respondents not to cause interference in the peaceful possession of the appellant. If such interference is noticed by the authorities, they are certainly in a position to inform the respondents that in case they are found interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellant, action would be taken against them. In other words, though this Court did not direct the Revenue authorities and Police to implement the order passed by this Court, at the instance of the appellant, they are doing so. But, I am not inclined to hold that their action is illegal. 4] The application, should therefore fail. The Civil application stands rejected. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp