1 wp407.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 407 of 2011 Mr. Vasantrao Marutrao Yadav & ors. ..Petitioner v/s. Shri Bhau Dagdu Tambe & anr. ..Respondents Mr. Kishor Patil i/b. Smita Mane for the petitioner. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 22 2011. P.C. By way of present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khandala dated 21st August, 2009 thereby allowing the application of the respondent-plaintiff for injunction and the order dated 11th August, 2010 vide which the Appeal filed by the present Petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court have failed to take into consideration the documents filed by the Petitioners which will show that Petitioner was in 2 wp407.11.sxw possession of the suit premises. He submits that lease deed of 1999, power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner in 1999 and agreement of sale dated 18th October, 1999 have not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. 3. The scope of interference in jurisdiction under Article 227 while examining the concurrent findings of fact is very limited. Unless it is noticed that findings were recorded by the Court are either perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities below. 4. Perusal of Paragraph 5 of the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as Paragraph 7 of the Judgment of the Appellate Court would reveal that both the Courts upon perusal of material placed before it have come to prima-facie finding that plaintiff has established prima-facie case. 5. In that view of the matter, no perversity is noticed to warrant interference. Rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)